Peer Review

Peer-review policy

Editorial screening

The editorial office checks scope, article type, completeness, anonymity, basic scholarly quality and compliance with journal policies. A manuscript may be returned for information or rejected at this stage when it is unsuitable. The author receives the reason for the decision.

Double-anonymous assessment

Suitable manuscripts are assessed by at least two qualified independent reviewers. Author and reviewer identities are not disclosed to each other; the handling editor can identify both. Authors must submit an anonymous manuscript and a separate author-information file. Material needed to assess the study, including relevant supplementary material, is included in review.

Reviewers must disclose competing interests and keep the material confidential. The editor selects reviewers on relevant expertise and independence. Reviewers assess the contribution, methods or analytical approach, evidence, reasoning, reporting and ethical issues.

Decision and revision

Editors consider the manuscript, review reports and any author response and make the decision: reject, request revision or accept. Reviews inform the decision and are not a vote. Revised manuscripts may undergo further review. Authors must provide a point-by-point response and a clean anonymous revision. Neither submission nor revision guarantees acceptance.

Independence and confidentiality

An editor or board member's own manuscript must be handled independently. Editorial decisions must not be influenced by fees, advertising or unrelated personal interests. Editors and reviewers must not disclose unpublished material or upload it to external AI services, and must not use generative AI to produce their assessments.

Timing and communication

The time required depends on the manuscript, reviewer availability, revisions and any integrity enquiries. The journal does not promise a fixed review or acceptance deadline. For an existing manuscript, authors can ask about progress through its discussion area.

Appeals

An author may submit a reasoned appeal identifying a material factual error or procedural concern and providing evidence. Where feasible, an editor not involved in the original decision reviews it. See the Publication Ethics policy and Contact page for communication arrangements.