Peer Review Policy

Editorial Policy

Each submission is considered against the selected journal’s scope and issue themes, its academic relevance, originality, clarity and suitability for scholarly discussion. Initial editorial screening checks completeness, manuscript preparation and compliance with submission requirements. Work outside the journal’s scope or requiring substantial preparation may be returned or declined at this stage.

Initial editorial screening and peer review are separate stages. Passing submission checks or receiving provisional acceptance does not by itself establish that independent peer review has been completed. Peer review requires a separate assessment of the work’s argument, methods, evidence and contribution.

What Double-Blind Review Means

Under double-blind review, reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and author identities are not disclosed to reviewers. The editorial team coordinates communications and retains the information needed to manage the submission responsibly.

• Place names, affiliations and contact information in the separate title-page file. Avoid unnecessary identifying details, acknowledgements and identifying document properties in the review manuscript.
• Cite relevant previous work accurately, including your own, without wording that unnecessarily reveals authorship.
• Keep review materials and correspondence confidential. Confidentiality supports candid assessment and reduces opportunities for personal or institutional influence; it is not a guarantee that a subject specialist can never infer authorship.

The Review Process

The following editorial sequence distinguishes manuscript handling from independent assessment. The editorial office communicates review arrangements and decisions; a submission-tracker status alone is not confirmation of completed peer review.

1. Manuscript Submission

   The author selects a journal and provides the manuscript, separate author information, abstract and required declarations.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

   The submission is checked for scope, completeness, presentation and suitability for review.

3. Reviewer Assignment

   For manuscripts selected for peer review, the handling editor seeks relevant subject expertise and checks for conflicts of interest before sharing review material.

4. Peer Review

   Reviewers assess the anonymised work and provide reasoned comments on its strengths, limitations and necessary improvements.

5. Editorial Assessment

   The editor considers the reports alongside the manuscript, journal scope and any integrity concerns.

6. Decision

   The author receives an editorial outcome and the changes required, where applicable.

7. Revision, if required

   The author supplies a revised manuscript and a response explaining how the comments have been addressed.

8. Final Decision

   The editor evaluates the revision and determines whether the work is suitable to proceed, needs further assessment or should be declined.

9. Publication

   Approved work proceeds only after the applicable author confirmations, copyright, payment, quality and production requirements are complete.

Editorial Decisions

Decisions consider originality, relevance to the journal, the strength of the reasoning and evidence, methodological suitability, clarity, citations, ethical compliance and the response to previous feedback. A reviewer’s recommendation informs the editorial decision; it does not replace it.

• Accept: the work is suitable to proceed, subject to any remaining publication formalities.
• Minor Revision: focused corrections or clarifications are required before a decision can be confirmed.
• Major Revision: substantial changes to the analysis, presentation or supporting evidence are needed; reassessment may be required.
• Reject: the work does not meet the journal’s scope or publication requirements, or unresolved concerns prevent it from proceeding.

Author Obligations

Authors must submit original work, identify contributors accurately, cite sources properly and disclose relevant interests, funding and ethical approvals. A manuscript must not be under consideration elsewhere at the same time.

The corresponding author should coordinate with every co-author, read the editorial correspondence and respond constructively to each reviewer or editor comment. Revisions must be submitted within the deadline communicated for that manuscript. If a change cannot be made, explain the reason and supporting evidence rather than silently omitting it.

Integrity & Misconduct

Concerns may involve plagiarism, fabricated or falsified findings, simultaneous submission, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, authorship disputes, undisclosed conflicts or other breaches of research and publication integrity.

The editorial team may request source material or an explanation, pause consideration and examine the available evidence. Depending on the findings and publication stage, appropriate action may include correction, further review, rejection, withdrawal before publication or a documented post-publication notice. Authors and other affected contributors should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the specific concerns.