Peer Review & Editorial Policies

Initial editorial assessment

Every submission is first assessed by an editor for relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, methodological adequacy, compliance with the author guidelines, and basic presentation quality. A manuscript may be rejected without external review when it is outside the journal’s scope, does not meet minimum scholarly standards, or is not prepared sufficiently for peer review.

External peer review

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are normally reviewed by at least two independent external experts. The journal uses single-anonymized peer review: reviewers know the authors’ identities, while reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript’s originality, methodological validity, clarity, interpretation, relevance, documentation, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field. Supplementary files, data statements, and code or repository links are included in the review where relevant.

Selection of reviewers

Authors are asked to suggest four suitably qualified reviewers and may identify reviewers they prefer to exclude. Suggested reviewers should not be from the authors’ institutions and should not have recent collaborations, close personal relationships, supervisory relationships, or other conflicts with the authors. Editors are not obliged to use suggested reviewers.

Confidentiality and conflicts of interest

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and associated files as confidential and must not use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage. A reviewer must decline an invitation where a financial, institutional, professional, personal, or competitive relationship could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, an impartial assessment.

Editorial decisions

Decisions may be: accept; minor revision; major revision; reject with an invitation to submit a substantially revised manuscript as a new submission; or reject. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers. The handling editor considers the reports and the authors’ responses, but reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision rests with the responsible editor.

Appeals

The corresponding author may submit one reasoned appeal to the Editorial Office where they believe that a material factual or procedural error affected the decision. The appeal must address the decision letter and reviewer reports specifically. Where practicable, an editor who was not responsible for the original decision will assess the appeal. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance.