Peer review is central to our commitment to a trustworthy scholarly record. All research articles undergo rigorous, independent assessment by experts qualified to evaluate the work.
Model: double-blind review
Our journals operate a double-blind peer-review model: the identities of authors and reviewers are withheld from one another to support impartial evaluation. Authors should anonymise their manuscript files accordingly.
The review workflow
- Initial editorial assessment — the editorial office checks the submission for completeness, scope, and adherence to ethical and formatting requirements.
- Editor evaluation — a handling editor assesses the manuscript’s suitability and significance; out-of-scope or clearly unsuitable submissions may be declined without external review.
- Independent review — suitable manuscripts are sent to at least two qualified reviewers who assess originality, methodology, validity, clarity, and contribution.
- Decision — based on reviewer reports, the editor reaches a decision: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.
- Revision & re-review — revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers; this may iterate until a final decision is reached.
- Final decision & production — accepted articles proceed to copy-editing, typesetting, proofing, and publication.
Reviewer responsibilities
- Provide objective, constructive, and timely assessments.
- Maintain strict confidentiality of the manuscript and review process.
- Declare any conflict of interest and decline if impartiality cannot be assured.
- Alert editors to any ethical concerns, including suspected plagiarism or data irregularities.
Editorial independence
Editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit and are made independently of commercial interests. Acceptance is never influenced by an author’s ability to pay any applicable charges.
Appeals & complaints
Authors who believe a decision was based on a misunderstanding may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office. Appeals are considered by an editor not involved in the original decision. Concerns about the process are handled in line with COPE guidance.