Editorial Process
Peer Review Policy
Our review workflow is designed to balance fairness, subject expertise, timely communication, and defensible editorial decisions.
Review Process
Manuscripts are evaluated through a structured editorial workflow that typically includes editorial screening followed by double-blind peer review. Reviewer identity is withheld from authors, and author identity is withheld from reviewers where feasible.
Editorial Triage
- Scope and fit with journal aims
- Baseline methodological soundness and reporting completeness
- Originality and potential contribution
- Compliance with ethics and submission requirements
Review Timeline
- Initial check: 1–3 business days after submission
- Peer review: Typically 3–6 weeks
- Editorial decision: Within 1 week of review completion
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected for subject expertise, methodological competence, and absence of disqualifying conflicts. Editors may invite additional reviewers when reports conflict.
Decision Types
- Accept — Minor or no revisions needed
- Minor Revision — Small changes required before acceptance
- Major Revision — Substantial changes needed; manuscript re-reviewed after revision
- Reject — Does not meet the journal's scope or quality standards
Criteria for Review
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on:
- Originality and significance of the contribution
- Scientific rigour and methodology
- Clarity and organisation of writing
- Adequate literature review and proper citations
- Validity of conclusions drawn from the data
- Ethical compliance and reproducibility transparency
Reviewer Conduct Expectations
- Maintain confidentiality and data security.
- Provide respectful and actionable feedback.
- Avoid discriminatory, ad hominem, or non-scholarly comments.
- Disclose conflicts immediately and decline assignments when necessary.
Revision Round Expectations
Authors should submit a clear point-by-point response to reviewer comments. Editors may return incomplete responses for clarification before re-review.
Appeals
Authors may appeal decisions with a technical, evidence-based statement. Appeals are reviewed case-by-case and may involve additional editorial or external assessment.