Peer Review Process

FORUM applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed from each other throughout the review. The editorial and review process is conducted as follows:

1. Initial Screening
   The Editor-in-Chief reviews each submission to ensure it meets the journal’s submission requirements and ethical standards, including a plagiarism check. Manuscripts that do not comply will be immediately rejected.
2. Reviewer Assignment
   The handling editor assigns the manuscript to at least two relevant reviewers and initiates the peer review process.
3. Peer Review
   Reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s content, structure, and contribution to the field. They provide recommendation notes to the Editor-in-Chief.
4. First Decision
   After both reviewers submit their recommendations, the manuscript will be categorized as:
• Accepted
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Rejected

If accepted, the manuscript is returned to the author for proofreading. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, considering reviewers’ recommendations and with approval from the editorial board.

1. Revision
   Manuscripts requiring revision are sent back to the author, who is given up to four weeks to address the reviewers’ comments and suggestions.
2. Final Decision
   After revisions are submitted, the section editor evaluates the manuscript and makes the final decision: acceptance or rejection.
3. Language Editing
   Once accepted, the manuscript is returned to the author for final language and readability editing, ensuring clarity without altering content.
4. Typesetting
   The typeset version of the article is sent to the author for final proofreading and approval.

Publication
Upon final approval, the article is published in FORUM. Depending on scheduling, some accepted articles will be published in the next issue, while others may be scheduled for upcoming editions.