Peer review and evaluation
Planned model: double-blind peer review. Reasoned reports, clear decisions and a traceable revision process.
Who sees whose identity?
In double-blind review, the author's identity is not shown to reviewers and the reviewer's identity is not shown to the author. The responsible editor has access to this information in order to assign reviewers and check for conflicts of interest. A narrow field or earlier work may not fully prevent identities from being guessed.
The editorial board and the reviewers are not the same. The names and institutions of the editors responsible for the journal are made public once their appointment is confirmed. Reviewer identities for each article are protected as part of anonymous review.
From manuscript to decision
Editorial screening
Scope, completeness of the file, original contribution and ethics statements are checked. A manuscript that is out of scope or does not meet the requirements may be returned with reasons, without being sent to reviewers.
Reviewer assignment
Relevant expertise and conflicts of interest are considered. For research articles, at least two independent external review reports are sought; further review may be requested if reviewers disagree.
Scholarly evaluation
The question, method, evidence, use of sources, ethical compliance and contribution are examined. Criticism is directed at the work, not the person.
Revision and decision
The author submits a point-by-point response and a revised file. The responsible editor decides to accept, request revision or reject, taking the reports and their reasoning into account.
Final check before publication
Author information, references, image permissions, licence and typesetting are checked. Acceptance and publication are separate stages.
Confidentiality and impartiality
Reviewers must not share manuscripts with third parties or use unpublished ideas or data for their own work. Confidential manuscripts and reports must not be uploaded to unauthorised external tools or generative AI services.
Circumstances that could affect the evaluation, such as close collaboration, a shared institution, a personal relationship or a financial tie, must be reported to the editor. An editor or reviewer with a conflict of interest withdraws from the decision.
Appealing a decision
An author may request an editorial review by providing the article details, the decision being appealed and concrete reasons. An appeal should not be concluded solely by the person who made the original decision. The journal contact page can be used.
No particular outcome or fixed review time is promised. Once submissions open, process information and significant delays should be communicated to authors.