1. Review model
Research articles are normally assessed through double-blind peer review: author identities are withheld from reviewers and reviewer identities are withheld from authors. Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
2. Peer-review workflow
- Technical screening for completeness, anonymisation, metadata, declarations, and file integrity.
- Editorial screening for scope, contribution, methods, reporting quality, ethics, language, and integrity concerns.
- Selection of at least two qualified and independent reviewers.
- Reviewer assessment using the journal's criteria and confidential conflict declaration.
- Editorial synthesis of reports; a third reviewer or specialist may be invited when reports conflict or expertise is incomplete.
- Author revision with a point-by-point response and tracked or clearly identified changes.
- Editorial decision based on the manuscript, evidence, reports, response, and policy compliance.
3. Review criteria
- clarity and significance of the scholarly problem;
- originality and identifiable contribution;
- appropriateness, transparency, validity, reliability, or credibility of methods;
- quality of analysis and consistency between evidence and conclusions;
- engagement with relevant and current literature;
- international, comparative, theoretical, policy, or practical relevance;
- ethical compliance, reporting completeness, data transparency, and citation integrity;
- clarity of language, tables, figures, abstract, and metadata.
4. Definition and disclosure of conflicts
A conflict of interest is any financial, personal, professional, academic, ideological, legal, or institutional relationship that could affect—or reasonably appear to affect—impartial judgment.
Authors
- funding and sponsor roles;
- employment, consultancy, ownership, patents, paid testimony, or advocacy;
- family, supervisory, or close collaborative relationships;
- institutional or personal interests relevant to the findings.
Reviewers
- recent collaboration or same institution;
- direct competition or closely overlapping work;
- personal relationship or dispute;
- financial or ideological interest in the outcome.
Editors
- own submission or submission of close colleagues/students;
- same institution or project relationship;
- personal, financial, or intellectual stake;
- prior involvement that prevents independent handling.
Publisher
- sponsor, advertising, fee, institutional, or partnership interests;
- any attempt to influence individual decisions;
- relationships requiring public disclosure or editorial firewall.
5. Conflict management
- authors disclose relevant interests in the manuscript and submission metadata;
- reviewers decline or consult the editor before reviewing when a conflict exists;
- editors recuse themselves and transfer the manuscript to an independent editor;
- submissions by editors or board members follow the same standards and are handled without their access to confidential review information;
- undisclosed conflicts discovered after publication may require a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other action depending on materiality.
6. Confidentiality and responsible review
- manuscripts, reviewer reports, identities, correspondence, and unpublished data are confidential;
- reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts or reports to public generative-AI tools;
- reviewers must not use unpublished information for personal or competitive advantage;
- review comments must be specific, respectful, evidence-based, and free from discriminatory language;
- requests for irrelevant citations or citations intended to benefit the reviewer, editor, or journal are prohibited.
7. Decisions, timelines, and appeals
Possible decisions are desk reject, reject after review, major revision, minor revision, accept subject to final checks, and accept. The journal communicates expected timelines honestly but does not guarantee acceptance or a fixed completion date when reviewer availability, additional investigation, or major revision is required.
An author who identifies a material factual, procedural, ethical, or conflict-management error may appeal under the Complaints and Appeals Policy.