This Journal uses Double blind peer review, which means both sides (the reviewers and authors) identities are concealed from each other, throughout the review process. The preliminary evaluation of manuscripts is expected to be performed within less than three days. The average time to complete the reviewing process is between three to four months. The Journal decision-making process includes the following steps:

• Registration in the Journal’s website by the corresponding author and submitting the manuscript.
• Reviewing the manuscript by the journal's Editorial office for technical and structural check. At this stage the manuscript may send back to the author to reformat and revise the paper or any other revision (if any) to meet the minimum requirements of the Journal.
• After the initial review and approval, the Executive Director of the Journal sends the manuscript to the Editorial Board Members for scientific review of the manuscript and the suggestion of reviewers, and after a week, he/she sends the result to the Editor-in-Chief, so that he can determine the reviewers of the manuscript.
• Before sending the manuscript to reviewers, it goes for similarity check using the Paper Plagiarism Checker, and if the percentage and quality of similarity exceeds the normal limit, the manuscript will be returned to the author.
• After similarity checking, the manuscript is sent to three or four selected reviewers, and a three-week deadline is set for scientific evaluation.
• If at least two reviewers suggest rejecting the article, a rejection letter will be issued for the manuscript.
• In case of a request for total or partial revision of the manuscript by at least two reviewers, the manuscript manuscript along with the opinions of the reviewers will be returned to the corresponding author to revise and provide explanations.
• As soon as the revised manuscript version and the author's possible explanations are received, the revision and explanations are reviewed by the executive director and the relevant files are sent to the final reviewer for continuing the review process.
• At each stage of the review process, if the reviewers withdraw from the review process or do not send the evaluation result within the stipulated deadline, another reviewer will be selected.
• If the editor-in-chief cannot find a suitable person as a reviewer within a certain period of time, or the selected reviewers avoid accepting the review, the manuscript may be removed from the review process according to the editor-in-chief’s opinion.
• According to the ultimate reviewer’s opinion based on revision need, the above process is followed as many times as necessary,  until the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript will be announced by the ultimate reviewer. In any case, a letter containing the final result will be sent to the authors.
• Accepted manuscripts are published in the journal based on the date of receipt and acceptance.