1. Journal Scope and Accepted Manuscripts

Submissions should address a meaningful question within elementary education and explain their theoretical, empirical, methodological, or practical value. Authors should verify alignment with the Aims and Scope before preparing a submission.

Research involving instructional media, assessment tools, or learning models must explain development or implementation procedures and provide appropriate evaluation evidence. Review articles must analyze connections, disagreements, limitations, and implications across studies; an annotated list of publications is insufficient.

1.1 Selecting the appropriate article category

An Original Research Article must report new evidence obtained through a well-defined empirical investigation. Suitable designs may include experimental or quasi-experimental studies, survey or correlational research, qualitative case studies and ethnography, mixed methods, rigorous classroom action research, and educational design or development research. The choice of design must be justified by the study’s aims rather than its popularity.

A Review Article must address a substantial research question through an explicit and defensible evidence-synthesis procedure. Eligible designs include systematic reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analyses, and integrative reviews with transparent selection and synthesis methods. Unsupported narrative summaries, standalone opinion essays, and conceptual commentary without a systematic evidentiary basis do not constitute separate accepted article categories under these guidelines.

2. Conditions for Submission

• The article is original and is not simultaneously being evaluated by another journal.
• Its research questions, approach, sources, findings, and scholarly contribution are identifiable and accurately reported.
• All authors qualify for authorship, have reviewed the final manuscript, and approve its submission.
• Permissions, institutional approvals, consent procedures, and protections for research participants have been addressed where applicable.
• Funding, competing interests, relevant prior dissemination, data access restrictions, and substantive AI assistance are disclosed.
• The official JIEEd manuscript template has been used, and all mandatory metadata are ready for entry into OJS.

Authors are expected to disclose related manuscripts, conference publications, preprints, or overlapping datasets whenever those materials may affect editorial assessment. Permission to enter a school does not, by itself, replace informed consent, child assent, or review by an appropriate ethics body where required. Every author must approve the submitted version and the order of authorship.

3. Manuscript Template and Formatting Specifications

Prepare the entire manuscript in Microsoft Word using the current JIEEd Article Template (updated since Vol. 6, No. 2, 2026). Preserve the template’s structural styles unless the journal specifically requests an adjustment.

Use consistent headings, mathematical notation, numbering, abbreviations, tables, and figures. Manuscripts requiring substantial reformatting may be returned before academic evaluation.

3.1 Formatting and file integrity

Maintain the official template’s heading hierarchy and the formatting of tables, figures, citations, and declarations. Insert each figure or table close to its first substantive reference in the manuscript. Use readable mathematical expressions and define abbreviations at first mention. Do not treat the webpage font shown in these guidelines as the font prescribed for the Word manuscript; the specifications in the table above govern the submitted file.

4. Required Structure for Each Article Type

The manuscript should develop an evidence-based argument that connects the research problem to the analysis and its contribution. The sequence of main sections depends on the article type.

Appropriate subheadings may be included, but all information necessary to evaluate the study must remain available. Methods and results should not be concealed within an extended narrative.

4.1 Connecting the sections into a coherent argument

Although the section sequence differs between empirical studies and evidence syntheses, the narrative should follow a common logic: educational context → specific scholarly problem → critical synthesis of existing knowledge → research gap or review rationale → research objective → transparent methods → credible findings → interpretation → contribution and implications. Subheadings may be adapted to the research design, but required reporting information must not be obscured by overly broad prose.

5. Title, Author Information, and Keywords

5.1 Manuscript title

Write a specific, accurate title that identifies the principal issue and, if useful, the participants, setting, or method. Avoid vague expressions, unnecessary institutional names, unexplained abbreviations, promotional claims, and language that overstates causality.

5.2 Names, affiliations, and correspondence

• State each author’s complete name without an academic title.
• Provide the full official institutional affiliation and country for each author.
• Identify one corresponding author and give a reliable email address.
• Include ORCID identifiers where available.
• Ensure the manuscript and OJS metadata show the same names, author order, and affiliations.

5.3 Keywords

Include three to five precise, discoverable keywords separated by semicolons. Choose terms that reflect the principal concepts, target group, educational context, or research design; do not simply repeat a long article title.

5.4 Examples of precise scholarly wording

The revised examples specify the phenomenon and context while avoiding results that have not yet been established. Keywords should normally comprise three to five individual concepts or short phrases, separated by semicolons. They should be consistent in the manuscript and the OJS metadata.

6. Writing a Clear and Coherent Abstract

The abstract must be written in one continuous paragraph of 150–220 words and provide an accurate, self-contained account of the manuscript. Readers should be able to identify five essential elements in a logical sequence: research problem or phenomenon, research objective, methods, results, and implications. The elements should form a flowing scholarly narrative rather than appear as separate labeled headings in the submitted abstract.

6.1 The five elements and their recommended signposting expressions

The following expressions help readers recognize each element. They are suggested sentence openings, not compulsory wording. Choose the formulations that best fit the research design and connect the sentences naturally. All example statements below are illustrative and must be replaced with information supported by the author’s own study.

6.2 Applying the structure to each article type

6.3 Example of a flowing abstract for an Original Research Article

The model below demonstrates how the five elements can be connected without visible subsection labels. Italicized placeholders must be replaced by the author’s verified information. The model is a writing example, not an account of a completed study.

6.4 Example of a flowing abstract for a Review Article

A review abstract should make the evidence-search and synthesis process clear while giving priority to the substantive findings and their significance.

6.5 Final writing and accuracy checks

• Use a single paragraph of 150–220 words; do not insert the labels Problem, Objective, Methods, Results, or Implications as abstract subheadings.
• Reserve sufficient space for actual findings and implications. A statement such as “the study found positive results” is too vague to inform readers.
• Use past tense for procedures and observed findings, and appropriately cautious present-tense expressions when explaining what the evidence suggests.
• Ensure that sample sizes, search counts, statistical estimates, qualitative themes, and interpretations match the full manuscript.
• Avoid citations, unexplained abbreviations, detailed literature reviews, tables, figures, promotional claims, and claims of causality unsupported by the design.
• Choose clear transitional language, but avoid repeating the same opening phrase in consecutive sentences or using formulaic wording that interrupts the narrative.

7. Introduction

Begin with a relevant educational context and move toward a specific question that the study can answer. Use recent and authoritative evidence to show why the issue matters, then synthesize the most closely related scholarship.

7.1 Context and significance

Clarify the educational issue and its consequences for teaching, learning, assessment, participation, or another relevant dimension of elementary education. Avoid generic claims about the universal importance of education without supporting evidence.

7.2 Critical engagement with previous studies

Group the literature by argument, research approach, finding, or unresolved issue. Compare studies and point out agreements, disagreements, and limitations instead of presenting a long succession of unrelated summaries.

7.3 Research gap and objectives

Identify a defensible theoretical, methodological, empirical, or contextual gap. A lack of publications about one school is not automatically a scholarly gap. End with the research question or objective and the anticipated contribution, without promising results that have not been obtained.

7.4 From evidence to the research question

Authors should formulate research questions that the reported design can answer. A gap is not established merely by claiming that no study was conducted in a particular school. Rather, authors should explain why the unanswered theoretical, empirical, methodological, or context-dependent question is consequential for integrated elementary education.

8. Theoretical Framework and Scientific Contribution

Select concepts and theories because they explain the phenomenon being investigated. Show how the framework informs the questions, variables, instruments, analytic codes, interpretations, or synthesis.

Present claims of novelty as reasoned conclusions supported by the scholarly record, not as advertising. A careful replication study may also make a valid contribution when its scientific purpose is clear.

8.1 Translating theory into observable evidence

Theoretical positioning is most persuasive when concepts are connected to observable features of the study. If the investigation draws on formative-assessment theory, for example, the article should explain how feedback opportunities were defined, how students’ responses were captured, how the instruments represented the constructs, and how the resulting observations informed interpretation. For Review Articles, the framework may instead organize coding categories or explain relationships across studies.

9. Methods for Original Research Articles

The Methods section should enable informed readers to understand the design, assess methodological quality, and follow the essential research procedures. Organize it around what was done, why it was suitable, how it was implemented, and how the quality of the evidence was evaluated.

9.1 Research design

Identify the approach and specific design, explain its alignment with the study questions, and report key design decisions. For experimental work, describe comparison groups, assignment where relevant, intervention conditions, baseline measures, and plausible threats to validity.

9.2 Setting, participants, and sampling

Describe the location or educational context without disclosing protected identities. Report the units of analysis, sample or case counts, characteristics, recruitment and selection procedures, inclusion criteria, and a suitable justification of sample adequacy.

9.3 Instruments and sources

Explain the origin, indicators, scoring, adaptation, and suitability of tests, rubrics, interview guides, observations, documents, or other sources. Report relevant validity, reliability, trustworthiness, and translation evidence rather than making unsupported claims that an instrument is “valid.”

9.4 Data collection and interventions

Specify the sequence, dates or duration, implementing personnel, conditions, tools, and safeguards. If evaluating an educational intervention, explain its essential components and how implementation was documented. Disclose material departures from the initial plan.

9.5 Data analysis

9.6 Methodological safeguards

Report only those procedures relevant to the design, such as measurement quality, bias reduction, reflexivity, transparent coding, triangulation, or evaluation of design iterations. Explain why each safeguard matters for the claims being made.

9.7 Ethics within the methods

Identify applicable ethics approvals, site permissions, consent processes, participant protection measures, data-security practices, and confidentiality procedures. Research involving children requires particular care, including parental or guardian permission and, when required, age-appropriate assent.

9.8 Reporting methodological decisions clearly

These four prompts form a flexible reporting aid, not a mandatory paragraph formula. Quantitative authors should explain relevant groups, allocation or sampling methods, instruments, scoring, baseline differences, statistical assumptions, missing data, effect sizes, and uncertainty estimates. Qualitative authors should make their data preparation, coding, interpretive stance, reflexivity, and credibility procedures transparent. Mixed-methods authors should describe where and why quantitative and qualitative results were integrated, not merely place separate findings next to each other.

Classroom and school-level data may be clustered. Where this affects inference, authors should account for the dependency rather than assuming that every pupil represents an independent experimental unit. Methods must also describe modifications to the planned procedure that may influence interpretation.

10. Methods for Review Articles

A review article must document a systematic, transparent approach appropriate to its review question. Authors should make it possible for readers to understand the source selection and synthesis decisions.

10.1 Review approach and question

Name the review type, define the review question, and justify the design. Specify the relevant population, educational context, phenomenon, intervention, or outcomes as appropriate.

10.2 Protocol and information sources

Describe any protocol or registration, including justified deviations. Name each database or information source, the dates searched, the time span covered, and any supplementary searching.

10.3 Search expressions and eligibility

Present enough search terms, Boolean combinations, and restrictions for the search to be evaluated. Define inclusion and exclusion criteria in advance where possible, and explain their educational and methodological rationale.

10.4 Study selection and extraction

Explain duplicate removal, title/abstract and full-text screening, the number of records retained, and resolution of reviewer disagreements where relevant. Describe the data items extracted, such as study design, context, participants, findings, and limitations.

10.5 Critical appraisal and synthesis

Use a risk-of-bias or quality-appraisal approach when appropriate. Explain whether the evidence was combined using thematic, narrative, framework, quantitative, or other synthesis techniques. For meta-analysis, report models, effect-size metrics, heterogeneity, and relevant sensitivity analyses.

10.6 Results of a review

Go beyond enumerating included studies. Explain convergences, tensions, research quality, unexplored issues, and what the combined evidence can—and cannot—support. Use the PRISMA 2020 or PRISMA-ScR reporting framework when applicable.

10.7 Search transparency and reproducibility

State the databases searched, date of the final search, years covered, platform-specific queries, filters, eligibility rules, number of reviewers involved in screening, and the method used to reconcile disagreements. When a formal protocol exists, cite or link it and explain substantive deviations. Protocol registration is encouraged where relevant but not automatically mandatory for all review types.

A systematic review should not be called systematic merely because several articles were found through Google Scholar. Authors should demonstrate a reproducible workflow and apply PRISMA 2020 or PRISMA-ScR when the corresponding review type falls within those frameworks’ scope. For meta-analysis, report effect-size definitions, models, heterogeneity, and appropriate sensitivity analyses.

11. Presentation of Results

Organize results around research questions or analytical themes. Separate core evidence from interpretation, and use tables or figures only when they improve clarity.

Ensure reported values are consistent across the abstract, tables, figures, and body text. Do not replace results with unsubstantiated explanations or speculative implications.

11.1 Examples of descriptive and analytical reporting

Visualizations should complement rather than duplicate the prose. Refer to each table or figure in the text, draw attention to the most consequential patterns, and report discrepancies or unexpected results rather than omitting them. For reviews, present selection outcomes, evidence characteristics, synthesis, and any appraisal findings.

12. Discussion and Interpretation

Explain what the findings mean in relation to the original problem, relevant theory, prior research, and the elementary education context. Evaluate alternative interpretations and findings that conflict with expectations.

• Begin with the central finding or synthesized message.
• Interpret plausible mechanisms and contextual conditions without exceeding the study design.
• Compare the findings with genuinely relevant research, including differences and contradictory evidence.
• Identify the theoretical, methodological, empirical, or educational contribution.
• Explain implications that reasonably follow from the evidence.
• Acknowledge limitations that affect validity, transferability, or generalizability.

Avoid restating the Results section, interpreting statistical significance as educational importance, making unwarranted causal claims, or relying on unrelated citations solely to increase the reference count.

12.1 An integrated, evidence-led discussion

A strong discussion follows a reasoned sequence: principal finding → theoretical or contextual interpretation → comparison with relevant research → scholarly contribution → educational implications → limitations. Not every paragraph needs all six elements. A useful paragraph-level strategy is Point–Reason–Evidence–Conclusion (PREC), in which a claim is explained, supported, and linked to its significance.

Interpret statistical significance in relation to effect magnitude, uncertainty, educational importance, and design limitations. A cross-sectional association does not establish causality; similarly, a short classroom intervention should not be used to claim durable or universal effects without adequate follow-up. For Review Articles, discuss differences in design quality and educational context and how they affect the strength of the synthesis.

13. Conclusion and Educational Implications

Provide a focused answer to the research objective or review question. Summarize the principal contribution, relevant implications for elementary education, consequential limitations, and well-grounded future research needs.

The conclusion should not introduce new findings, additional references, generic recommendations unrelated to evidence, or claims that the study cannot support.

14. Tables, Figures, and Supplementary Files

• Number tables and figures sequentially and provide self-explanatory titles or captions.
• Refer to each visual within the narrative and clarify abbreviations, labels, symbols, and measurement units.
• Use clear graphics, accessible text, and the layout provided in the journal template.
• Avoid decorative visualizations, repeated information, and unnecessary vertical lines in tables.
• Cite the source of reused or adapted material and obtain permission where required.
• Remove identifying details from images, transcripts, and supplementary data unless ethically and legally authorized.

Supplementary protocols, instruments, datasets, analytical information, or reporting checklists may accompany the manuscript when they help clarify or verify the research.

14.1 Clear presentation of tables and figures

Avoid using figures merely as decoration. Obtain permission for protected instruments, images, or adapted material where needed; do not presume that publication under an open license removes third-party copyright restrictions. Photographs or records that can identify children must satisfy consent and privacy requirements.

15. Reporting Standards for Research Designs

Use recognized reporting guidance when it is suitable for the design; adopting a checklist does not substitute for methodological explanation.

A framework should be used only within its intended scope. For example, trial-specific checklists are not automatically appropriate to every classroom quasi-experiment.

Use CONSORT for randomized trials, PRISMA 2020 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews, COREQ for qualitative interview or focus-group studies, and STROBE where an observational design falls within its intended scope. These are design-specific reporting tools, not universal substitutes for explaining decisions that matter to an individual study. When relevant, authors may attach an appropriately completed checklist as a supplementary document.

16. References and APA 7th Edition

Citations and the reference list must follow APA 7th Edition. JIEEd requires at least 30 references, with at least 80% drawn from reputable scholarly journals published within the preceding five years, while allowing well-justified seminal sources that are relevant to the argument.

16.1 Citation conventions

16.2 Reference-list models

16.3 Quality control

• Confirm that every in-text citation has a corresponding reference entry and vice versa.
• Check author names, dates, titles, journal details, volume/issue, pagination, and DOI links.
• Use a reference manager such as Mendeley, Zotero, or EndNote, followed by manual verification.
• Avoid invented sources, irrelevant citations, and bibliographic errors.

16.4 Verifiable examples and reference composition

For a manuscript with exactly 30 references, an 80% requirement means that at least 24 references should be qualifying journal articles from the preceding five years. Authors should evaluate the requirement against the actual submission date and the journal’s current policy. Foundational theories and seminal books may still be necessary, but should be selected deliberately and not used to avoid engaging with recent research.

Retain the DOI in hyperlink form when available, check that it resolves to the intended publication, and verify authorship, publication year, title, journal title, volume, issue, and article or page number. Do not rely on automatically generated or AI-generated references without consulting the original sources.

17. Authorship and Contributions

List only people who made meaningful intellectual contributions, took part in drafting or critical revision, approved the version for submission, and accept appropriate responsibility for the work. Unjustified honorary, purchased, ghost, or coercive authorship is not acceptable.

Describe each contributor’s role where the journal requires or the template provides an authorship declaration. The CRediT role vocabulary may be used to communicate contribution types transparently.

Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be explained and supported by the agreement of affected authors and editorial approval.

Author order must be agreed upon before submission. The corresponding author coordinates editorial correspondence but does not thereby receive sole responsibility for or ownership of the study. All coauthors should be able to account for the parts of the work to which they contributed and cooperate in resolving integrity concerns.

18. Research Ethics and Protection of Participants

Describe compliance with the ethical requirements applicable to the research location, institution, design, and participants. Ethical review or permissions must be reported truthfully where required.

18.1 Studies involving children

• Protect voluntary participation and avoid pressure from teachers, schools, or researchers.
• Obtain parental or guardian permission and age-appropriate child assent when required.
• Limit collection and disclosure of identifiable educational, photographic, audiovisual, or health information.
• Describe anonymization or confidentiality safeguards and secure handling of research records.
• Clarify whether publication of quotations, photographs, or recordings has been specifically authorized.

18.2 Ethics statement

Identify the approving committee or authorized body and the approval number/date when applicable. Where formal ethical review was not required, explain the basis of that determination and the protections implemented. School access permission alone should not be presented as a substitute for other necessary consent.

18.3 Examples of truthful ethical reporting

Researchers must make participation voluntary and avoid classroom or institutional pressure. In settings involving vulnerable pupils, explain how nonparticipation affected—or did not affect—school activities and assessment. Clearly distinguish school-access authorization from permission to publish identifiable images, voices, or personal information.

19. Required Declarations and Acknowledgments

Place relevant declarations consistently in the manuscript according to the template and submission fields.

Provide accurate author-contribution and AI-use declarations where applicable; these statements must describe actual circumstances rather than generic text copied without verification.

19.1 Declaration examples to adapt

These statements illustrate format, not standard wording to be copied regardless of the facts. If a dataset cannot be shared because the participants are children or because consent limits redistribution, say so explicitly and explain whether any non-identifying materials can appropriately be supplied.

20. Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence

Authors remain accountable for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all submitted content, including material prepared with AI assistance. AI systems cannot be credited as authors.

• Verify all scientific arguments, references, factual claims, computations, analyses, and images independently.
• Disclose substantive use of AI in research planning, analysis, literature synthesis, data processing, figure production, or manuscript preparation in line with the journal’s policy.
• Specify the tool, its purpose, and the part of the workflow affected when disclosure is required.
• Do not fabricate data or references, conceal methods, reproduce protected material without permission, or upload confidential participant data to unauthorized services.

See the AI Use Policy for the journal’s detailed requirements and examples.

20.1 Example of a specific AI disclosure

Substantive AI use requires sufficient detail for the editors to understand its scope. AI output must not be treated as an authoritative source, confidential participant data must not be uploaded to unauthorized services, and an AI system must never be listed as an author. Authors are responsible for verifying the journal’s current separate AI policy.

21. Originality and Similarity Checks

Properly cite all borrowed ideas, words, methods, and materials. JIEEd applies Turnitin similarity screening with a technical maximum of 20%, but the numerical score is not a standalone determination of plagiarism.

Editors evaluate overlapping text in context, including quotations, citations, common research terminology, substantial reuse, and redundant publication. A manuscript below the threshold can still contain plagiarism, and a flagged passage may require explanation rather than automatic rejection.

• Avoid submitting substantially the same work to multiple journals at the same time.
• Declare relevant previous dissemination, overlapping publications, or related datasets.
• Do not manipulate citations, misrepresent authorship, or fabricate or selectively alter findings.

Full procedures are explained in the Plagiarism and Similarity Screening Policy and Research Misconduct Policy.

22. Peer Review, Editorial Decisions, and Manuscript Revision

Suitable manuscripts may undergo single-anonymous evaluation by at least two independent reviewers. When the editor requests changes, authors should address the feedback transparently and professionally.

• Upload a revised manuscript using the applicable OJS revision stage.
• Prepare a response document addressing each reviewer and editor's comment individually.
• Identify the page, paragraph, table, or section changed.
• Explain respectfully, with evidence, why a requested change was not adopted.
• Recheck the abstract, results, tables, declarations, and references for consistency after revision.

See the Peer Review Policy for editorial and reviewer procedures beyond the author’s revision responsibilities.

22.1 Editorial screening and external review

The editorial office first considers scope, completeness, originality, methodological suitability, and research integrity. A manuscript may proceed to external review, be returned for corrections, or be declined at this stage. Manuscripts selected for review are evaluated under JIEEd’s single-anonymous (single-blind) system by at least two qualified, independent reviewers. The reviewers’ recommendations inform the editor’s judgment but do not determine the decision automatically.

22.2 Recommendations and the final decision

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. The editor evaluates the scholarly arguments, adequacy of methods and evidence, reviewer concerns, author responses, and the journal’s ethical requirements. A request for major or minor revision does not constitute an acceptance commitment. The corresponding author should follow the deadline and instructions stated in the OJS decision letter.

22.3 Point-by-point response example

Responses should quote or identify every substantive editor and reviewer comment, state the precise action taken, and provide page or section references. If an author disagrees with a recommendation, the response should explain the scientific reason respectfully, supported by evidence or citations.

23. Submitting through OJS

Submit manuscripts through the official JIEEd Online Submission System. The corresponding author should retain access to the OJS account and monitor messages throughout evaluation.

Supporting files may include ethics approval, a cover letter, a reporting checklist, a protocol, an instrument, or a dataset, when applicable. Do not upload confidential materials that the editor has not requested or that cannot be shared responsibly.

23.1 Metadata and supplementary files

The OJS record should include the complete article title, abstract, three to five keywords, author names in the agreed order, official affiliations and country, corresponding-author contact information, and ORCID identifiers where available. These details must match the uploaded manuscript. Depending on the design and editorial request, supplementary files may include a cover letter, ethics documentation, study instruments, a protocol, reporting checklist, analytical materials, or responsibly sharable data.

24. Article Processing Charges and Publication Rights

JIEEd operates a fully open-access, no-fee scholarly publishing model. Under its current published policies, neither manuscript submission nor standard article publication requires payment. Fee arrangements do not influence editorial decisions, which are based on scholarly merit and research integrity.

24.1 Copyright retention and open-access license

Authors retain copyright in their original articles and grant JIEEd the non-exclusive rights needed for publication. Published articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution–ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0). Reusers may share and adapt material subject to appropriate attribution, an indication of changes where applicable, and ShareAlike licensing conditions for distributed adaptations. Rights to third-party material, participant images, and confidential data must be considered separately.

See Open Access Policy and Copyright and Licensing Policy for the full published conditions.

25. Final Author Submission Checklist

Authors should perform this review before clicking the final submission confirmation. Careful preparation supports an efficient editorial assessment but does not guarantee publication.

In addition to the checks above, confirm that the article type is accurately selected; review methods report search and selection processes where relevant; all authors approved the final files; supplementary ethical documentation is handled responsibly; and the manuscript’s author order, abstract, keywords, and affiliations match the OJS entries.

26. Scientific Quality Self-Assessment

Before submission, consider whether the manuscript demonstrates convincing academic merit rather than merely complying with technical formatting.

Editors consider the combined strength of relevance, originality, theoretical grounding, methodological rigor, results, discussion, scholarly contribution, research integrity, and clarity of presentation. Technical conformity alone cannot compensate for an unsupported claim of novelty, missing methodological details, weak evidence, or conclusions that extend beyond the findings.

27. Related Journal Policies and Essential Resources

These guidelines should be interpreted together with the official journal policies. Where procedural details change, the published journal policy and current manuscript template should be consulted before submission.

• Journal homepage
• Aims and Scope
• Official manuscript template
• Submission Checklist
• Peer Review Policy
• Publication Ethics
• Plagiarism and Similarity Screening
• Research Misconduct Policy
• AI Use Policy
• Open Access Policy
• Copyright and Licensing
• Submit via OJS