Original and verified results should be detailed in the article. In order for others to be able to confirm the work, experimental procedures should provide enough details. The document ought to be ten to twelve typed pages long and should include the following sections:

• (a) an abstract;
• (b) no more than five keywords;
• (c) an introduction that accurately describes the topic and cites pertinent literature;
• (d) the methods and materials used;
• (e) the findings and discussion;
• (f) acknowledgments;
• (g) references. There should not be a heading for the introduction or abstract.

Review (not exceeding 5000 words)

It needs to cover all the bases, be current, and offer critical analysis of a significant recent topic. It has to note the most recent references and point out where further research is needed. An abstract (without a heading), keywords, acknowledgments, and references should also be included.

Book Reviews (not exceeding 1500 words)

While most book reviews are either requested or commissioned, we will also take into account reviews that are not. Reviews are not meant to only "list" the book's contents. The Editor-in-Chief or an editor designated by the Editor-in-Chief will have the last say on whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected once it has been reviewed.

Editorial procedure

Single-blind peer review

Special issues authored by outside experts are also published in this journal. These articles undergo the same rigorous peer assessment as all of the journal's submissions. Furthermore, guest editors will not be responsible for overseeing the peer review process if they write an article for their issue or collection.

Peer Review Process:

• The Editor or handling editors review all submitted manuscripts to ensure they are suitable. Papers are carefully selected for formal review based on subject appropriateness and their likelihood of meeting our publication requirements. This is because peer review demands a significant time and effort commitment. No external review is conducted for publications that the editors deem unsuitable or do not sufficiently pertain to the journal's specific topic. Authors can save time by pursuing publishing in a more acceptable location after making this initial decision.
• Reviewed manuscripts are sent to at least two independent peer reviewers.
• Reviewers' comments and suggestions will be taken into account by the editors when the paper is decided. Reviewers have the option of rejecting papers outright or inviting authors to make revisions and resubmit. The process of having a work approved for publishing in a journal begins when all issues and concerns mentioned in the review and by the editors have been addressed.
• This publication also releases special issues, compilations, and supplements. These articles undergo the same rigorous peer assessment as all of the journal's submissions. Furthermore, guest editors will not be responsible for overseeing the peer review process if they write an article for their issue, collection, or supplement.