Peer Review Policy
A transparent, timely, and constructive process — double-blind by default.
Initial editorial screening
Handled within 5 working days — checked for scope, formatting, ethics, and originality.
Reviewer assignment
Two or more independent, subject-matter reviewers; typically 3–6 weeks.
Decision & revision
Accept, minor/major revisions, or reject with reasons. Author responses handled promptly.
Editorial approval
Final decision by the Editor-in-Chief, followed by copy-editing, typesetting, and publication.
Type of review
Reviewer criteria
- Relevance to the journal's scope
- Originality and significance
- Rigour of methodology and analysis
- Clarity of writing and structure
- Evidentiary support for claims
- Ethical conduct
Confidentiality
Manuscripts and reviews are treated as strictly confidential. Reviewer identities remain confidential under the journal’s stated double-blind model. Reviewers must not discuss the manuscript or share it with third parties.
Conflicts of interest
- Editors must not handle manuscripts where they have a personal, professional, financial, or institutional conflict of interest. Handling responsibility is transferred to another editor.
- Reviewers must declare any real or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. When in doubt, decline the review.
Editorial decision
Final decisions are based on the handling editor’s judgment of the manuscript’s scholarly merit, informed by the reviewers’ comments. Decisions do not automatically follow a numerical reviewer vote — reviewer input is advisory, and the editor may weight reviews differently based on expertise, depth of engagement, and evidence provided.
Appeals
Authors may appeal editorial decisions in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision letter, providing a clear response to reviewer comments and, where relevant, additional evidence. Appeals are considered by an independent editor who did not handle the original submission and are resolved within 30 days of receipt. The Editor-in-Chief’s final decision on an appeal is binding.
