This diagram illustrates the editorial workflow of a peer-reviewed journal, involving various roles, including the Author, Section Editor, Reviewer, Copyeditor, Layout Editor, and Proofreader. The process begins with manuscript submission, where the author uploads the file and enters the required metadata. Once a manuscript is submitted, the Editor-in-Chief assigns a Section Editor, who will be responsible for overseeing the editorial process of that particular manuscript. At this stage, the Section Editor conducts an initial check to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal's minimum requirements, including relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, adherence to word count, language quality, absence of plagiarism, and formatting consistency. If the manuscript passes this screening, the Section Editor assigns at least two reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter. Section Editors will also check the similarity of manuscripts in this journal using Turnitin or iThenticate software. The submitted manuscripts to this journal will be peer-reviewed by at least 2 (two) or more expert reviewers. The reviewers give valuable scientific comments, improving the contents of the manuscript. Sometimes (if required), a third peer-reviewer must critically comment on the submitted manuscript. The review process used in this journal is a Double-Blind review system.

Once the review is completed, the Section Editor makes an editorial decision based on the recommendations of the reviewers. If accepted, the final decision of manuscript acceptance is solely made by the Editor in Chief/Regional (Handling) Editor together with the Section Editorial Board according to reviewers' critical comments. The manuscript proceeds to the editing stage, which includes copyediting, layout formatting, and proofreading. The authors are involved in reviewing and approving the galleys.