Peer review policy
Editorial assessment, reviewer responsibilities, and author participation.
Review model
Peer review model: To be announced. Anonymity arrangements, reviewer numbers, and review timelines will be specified by the editorial office before external review begins.
Initial editorial screening
Screening should assess alignment with the journal’s scope, completeness, readability, required declarations, and potential integrity concerns. Editorial screening is separate from acceptance.
Reviewer selection
Reviewers should have relevant expertise and sufficient independence. Potential financial, professional, and personal conflicts should be assessed before an invitation is accepted.
Review process
Reviews should evaluate the research question, methods, evidence, interpretation, originality, and limitations. Recommendations inform an editorial decision; reviewers do not determine publication independently.
Confidentiality
Unpublished manuscripts and review communications should be treated as confidential. Reviewers should not share files with third parties or upload them to external tools without appropriate authorization.
Author revisions
Authors should address each substantive point in a response document, identify manuscript changes, and explain any disagreement with evidence. A revision request is not an acceptance decision.
Editorial decisions
Decisions should be documented and explained. Possible outcomes include further review, revision, acceptance, and rejection. Editors should distinguish publication standards from commercial interests.
Conflicts of interest
Editors and reviewers should disclose competing interests and recuse where impartial assessment is not possible. Authors should disclose relevant relationships in the manuscript.
Reviewer responsibilities
Provide timely, constructive, respectful feedback. Cite evidence for concerns and avoid demands for irrelevant citations or personal advantage. Inform the editor if the assignment cannot be completed.
Appeals
Authors may submit a reasoned appeal with the manuscript ID and specific grounds through the editorial contact form. An uninvolved editor should assess the appeal. Response timelines will be announced.