Peer-Review Process
All research articles considered suitable following the initial editorial assessment undergo peer review before a final decision on publication is made. The journal operates a double-blind peer review process, in which the identity of the authors is not disclosed to the reviewers and the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors. Every manuscript is first assessed by the editorial team and, if suitable, is then sent to reviewers for evaluation.
1. Initial editorial assessment
Upon submission, each manuscript is first assessed by the editorial team. At this stage, the editorial team examines whether the manuscript falls within the aims and scope of the journal, whether it addresses a question of public interest, and whether it meets the formal requirements set out in the Submission Criteria.
The originality of the manuscript is screened using iThenticate. As a general screening rule, manuscripts with an overall similarity score exceeding 20%, or with a match exceeding 3% from a single source, are subject to a more detailed editorial assessment. These thresholds are indicative and do not, in themselves, constitute a finding of plagiarism. The editorial team evaluates the nature, extent, and context of the identified similarities on the basis of the similarity report. Where the detected overlap cannot be adequately justified, the manuscript may be returned to the authors for revision or declined without being sent for peer review.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s editorial requirements, fall outside its aims and scope, or raise significant concerns regarding originality may therefore be declined at this stage or returned to the authors without being sent for peer review. This initial assessment is normally completed within 14 days of submission, and the corresponding author is informed of the outcome.
2. Peer review
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are sent to reviewers selected by the editorial team on the basis of their expertise and the relevance of their academic background to the subject of the manuscript. To preserve the integrity of the double-blind review process, reviewers are not assigned to manuscripts submitted by authors from the same institution. Reviewers are also required to inform the editorial team if they identify any circumstance that may affect their impartiality, including situations in which the identity of the author becomes apparent from the manuscript. Reviewers are given 30 days to examine the manuscript and submit their review report.
3. Editorial decisions
Once the peer review process has been completed, the editorial team considers the assessments and recommendations received and makes a decision on the manuscript. The recommendations made during peer review inform the editorial decision, while the final decision rests with the editorial team. The possible outcomes are:
- acceptance with no changes;
- acceptance with minor changes;
- acceptance with review and resubmission;
- rejection.
The outcome is communicated to the corresponding author, together with the review comments.
4. Revision and resubmission
Authors who receive a decision requiring changes are asked to submit a revised manuscript within 30 days, together with a point-by-point response indicating how each point raised has been addressed and where the corresponding change can be found in the text. Where a recommendation has not been followed, a reasoned justification should be provided.
The revised manuscript is checked again for textual similarity using iThenticate. Depending on the nature and extent of the revisions, the manuscript may undergo further peer review before a final decision is made. Additional revisions may be requested where necessary.
5. Publication
Manuscripts that receive a final decision of acceptance are published in a forthcoming issue.
Information for reviewers
Reviewers are asked to treat each manuscript as a confidential document. It may not be shared with third parties or uploaded to any external platform, including artificial intelligence tools. Reviewers are asked to inform the editorial team where they suspect plagiarism, data manipulation, or any other breach of publication ethics.
Review reports should be constructive, specific, and sufficiently detailed to enable authors to address the issues raised. Vague formulations should be avoided. Rather than stating only that a section should be improved, reviewers should explain what requires clarification or revision and why.
Review form
Reviewers evaluate each manuscript using the journal's peer review form, which sets out the criteria against which manuscripts are assessed. Authors may consult this form in order to understand how their work will be evaluated. Click here to access the peer review form.
