1. Peer Review System

The journal strictly applies a double-anonymous peer review framework. Throughout the evaluation process, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are completely concealed from one another. All submissions undergo an initial editorial screening before being evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon receipt, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor conducts a preliminary assessment of the manuscript. This step evaluates the submission's alignment with the journal's focus and scope, basic academic quality, formatting compliance, and adherence to publication ethics. Manuscripts failing to meet these foundational criteria may be immediately rejected without proceeding to external review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are carefully handpicked based on their subject-matter expertise, practical experience in community service, and academic rigor. The journal exclusively assigns independent reviewers who have no personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the manuscript or its authors.

4. Review Criteria

Evaluators are expected to provide constructive, evidence-based feedback based on the following parameters:

• Alignment with the journal's focus and scope.
• Originality and practical contribution to arts-based community service and related fields.
• Clarity of program objectives and the significance of the outcomes.
• Appropriateness of the execution methods, theoretical framework, and analysis.
• Depth and accuracy of the results, reflections, and discussions.
• Quality of academic writing, structural organization, and reference management.
• Strict compliance with research integrity and publication ethics.

5. Review Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Reviewers serve in an advisory capacity, providing one of four recommendations: Accept (no substantive revisions needed), Minor Revision (requires limited adjustments), Major Revision (requires substantial changes and possible re-evaluation), or Reject. The final editorial decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor, guided by the reviewers' assessments and the manuscript's intrinsic merit.

6. Revision and Re-review

Authors are required to systematically address reviewer feedback and submit their revised manuscript within the stipulated deadline. Revisions must be accompanied by a point-by-point response document explaining the changes made or justifying why certain suggestions were not adopted. Substantially revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of evaluation.

7. Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct

All submitted materials are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not copy, distribute, or leverage unpublished manuscript data for personal advantage. Importantly, reviewers are explicitly prohibited from uploading manuscript content into publicly accessible generative AI tools or third-party platforms that could breach confidentiality protocols.

8. Conflicts of Interest

Absolute transparency is mandated for all parties. Authors, reviewers, and editors must proactively declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest. Should an editor have a conflict of interest regarding a submission, the manuscript will immediately be reassigned to an independent editorial member.

9. Review Timeline

The journal targets a two-week turnaround for the initial editorial screening. Following this, the peer review phase typically spans two to four weeks. These timeframes are estimates and may fluctuate based on reviewer availability and the complexity of the required revisions.

10. Appeals

Authors possessing valid grounds to contest a rejection may formally appeal to the Editor-in-Chief via email. The appeal must provide concrete evidence addressing factual errors or critical misunderstandings during the review process. While all appeals are evaluated impartially, submitting an appeal does not guarantee a reversal of the final decision.

11. Editorial Independence

All publication decisions are impartial and driven solely by the manuscript’s intrinsic quality, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal's scope. Decisions are never influenced by an author's nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, political beliefs, or commercial considerations.