Manuscripts submitted to our journal will go through a double-blind peer review process with the following stages:
1. Assessment by Editor-in-Chief of Alif Lam
    Alif Lam checks the composition and organization of the paper against the journal's Author
    Guidelines to ensure it includes the necessary sections and style and is appropriate for the journal
    and is sufficiently original and interesting. Otherwise, the paper may be rejected without further
    review.
2. Invitation to Reviewers
    The editor-in-chief sent invitations to two reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise
    according to the topic of the manuscript.
3. Responses to Invitations
    Potential reviewers weigh invitations against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and
    availability. They then accept or reject. If possible, when they decline, they may also suggest an
    alternative reviewer.
4. Review is Conducted
    Two reviewers of the same expertise did their review of the manuscript.
5. Journal Evaluating Reviews
    After the reviewers complete their review and submit their results to the editor-in-chief,
    the editor-in-chief evaluates the review results.
6. Decisions are Communicated
    The editor-in-chief sends authors a decision email notifying them of the decision for their
    manuscript, including any relevant comments from the reviewers for revision. The comments are
    anonymous
7. Author Revision
    a. If accepted, the manuscript is sent to the copyeditor. If the manuscript is rejected, it will be
        archived.
    a. If the manuscript is sent back for major or minor revisions, the chief editor will include
        constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the manuscript.
    b. Reviewers also receive an email letting them know the results of their review of the manuscript.
    c. If a paper is sent back for revision, the reviewer should expect to receive the new version, unless
        they choose not to participate further.
    d. When only minor changes are requested of the authors, this follow-up review is taken care of by
        the editor-in-chief.