How Directive Publications ensures every research article is independently, rigorously and transparently assessed through double-blind peer review.
At Directive Publications, peer review is the foundation of the scholarly record we publish. Every research article across our journals is evaluated through independent, expert double-blind peer review before it can be accepted. Our editorial policies follow the COPE Core Practices and the ICMJE Recommendations, and every accepted article is assigned a Crossref-registered DOI (prefix 10.52338) and published Open Access under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) licence, with authors retaining copyright. This page explains how our review process works, what we assess, who conducts the assessment, and the rights and responsibilities of everyone involved.
Our journals operate double-blind peer review: the identities of the authors and the identities of the reviewers are withheld from one another throughout the process. Authors do not learn who reviewed their manuscript, and reviewers assess the work without knowing who wrote it.
We use this model deliberately. Masking author identity helps reviewers focus on the science itself — the originality, rigour and importance of the work — rather than on the authors' names, gender, seniority, institution, country or reputation. This reduces sources of conscious and unconscious bias and supports fair, merit-based evaluation for early-career and established researchers alike. Because our review is anonymous, reviews are not signed, opened or published alongside articles.
Every submission moves through a defined workflow. The article type is indicated on the published record; note that some non-research content — such as editorials, letters and certain commentaries — may receive editorial review only rather than full external peer review.
Reviewers are asked to judge each manuscript on its scholarly merits, including:
Reviews are conducted by independent external subject-matter experts, identified and overseen by the journal's handling editor and editorial board. Reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant expertise and the absence of competing interests. As a matter of policy we seek at least two independent expert reviewers for each research manuscript; the precise number is determined by the editor according to the needs of the work. We encourage reviewers to register and use an ORCID iD so their contribution to the scholarly record is properly recognised.
Authors are welcome to suggest reviewers they consider suitable, or to identify individuals they would prefer be excluded and explain why. Such input is genuinely valued, but the selection of reviewers and the final decision rest entirely with the editor. Each journal's editorial board is listed on that journal's own page; browse our journals to view them.
After considering the reviewer reports, the handling editor issues one of the following decisions:
The handling editor makes the final decision. Payment of any applicable article-processing charge never influences editorial outcomes and does not guarantee acceptance.
We are committed to prompt, transparent handling and to keeping authors informed of their manuscript's status. Manuscripts that are clearly unsuitable are declined promptly so that authors can submit elsewhere without delay. Because thorough review depends on the availability and diligence of independent experts, we describe our commitment qualitatively rather than promising fixed turnaround times or guaranteed decision dates.
To keep your identity masked, please anonymize your submission before uploading it:
In line with the COPE ethical guidance for peer reviewers, everyone who accepts a review agrees to:
Interested in serving? Learn more and apply through Become a Reviewer.
Consistent with the ICMJE Recommendations, our editors hold full authority over the content of their journals. An editor may decline a manuscript at any stage — including after acceptance, should a serious integrity concern come to light. Editorial decisions are based on the validity, rigour and importance of the work to readers, never on commercial interest. Editors recuse themselves and delegate handling to an independent colleague whenever they have a conflict of interest. Our broader framework is set out in our editorial policies.
Submitted manuscripts and their contents are treated as strictly confidential by editors and reviewers. They are not disclosed to or discussed with third parties, and the ideas they contain are not appropriated for anyone's advantage. All parties are expected to disclose competing interests. Confidentiality is set aside only where misconduct is alleged and an investigation is warranted, and then only to the extent necessary and with appropriate notice.
Reviewers and editors must not upload any part of a submitted manuscript to public or third-party generative-AI tools, because doing so breaches the confidentiality authors are entitled to. Artificial intelligence cannot be listed, credited or acknowledged as a reviewer. Any use of AI assistance in preparing a review must be disclosed to the editor, and the human editor remains fully responsible for the evaluation and the final decision. Our expectations for authors' use of AI are described in our publication ethics policy.
All submissions undergo plagiarism and similarity screening. Concerns about ethics, authorship, data integrity or image manipulation are investigated in line with the COPE Core Practices, and we work with authors and institutions to resolve them. Where the published record must be amended, we issue corrections, expressions of concern or retractions as appropriate; see our corrections and retractions policy and our publication ethics commitments.
Authors who believe an editorial decision was based on a factual error or a misunderstanding of their work may submit a good-faith appeal to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, setting out the specific points at issue. Appeals are considered on their merits, and the Editor-in-Chief's decision is final. Complaints about the conduct of the review process itself are handled in accordance with the COPE Core Practices. Appeals and complaints should be sent to [email protected] with the manuscript reference.
Peer review depends on the generosity of the research community, and we welcome new reviewers across all of our subject areas. We encourage authors and reviewers alike to register an ORCID iD so that scholarly contributions are properly attributed, and we acknowledge the essential work reviewers contribute to the journals they serve. If you have relevant expertise and would like to contribute, we would be glad to hear from you. To express your interest, visit Become a Reviewer or write to [email protected].
Rigorous review is only credible when its outputs are open and durable. Every accepted article receives a Crossref-registered DOI under prefix 10.52338 and is published Open Access under CC BY 4.0, with authors retaining copyright. The published article is the version of record. Article metadata is openly available for harvesting and indexing services via OAI-PMH and JATS XML, and content is safeguarded through off-site backups while we pursue a formal digital-archiving arrangement. Directive Publications is actively working toward inclusion in relevant scholarly indexing and discovery services, and our peer-review, ethics and integrity standards are designed to support those applications. To learn more, explore our editorial policies and open-access commitments, or submit your research.