1. Submission
The author submits through the online system with all required files and statements.
Policy status: draft, not yet approved. The stages below describe a proposed process. Review model and timelines are left open on purpose.
Review model
All research articles are assessed by independent experts before a decision is made.
- Anonymity model
- To be confirmed by the editorial board
- Number of reviewers per manuscript
- To be confirmed
- Typical time to first decision
- Published only once confirmed
The process
2. Editorial screening
The editorial office checks completeness; a section editor checks scope, originality and basic quality.
3. Reviewer assignment
The editor invites qualified reviewers who declare any conflicts of interest.
4. Peer review
Reviewers assess the work and recommend a decision with written comments.
5. Decision
The editor weighs the reviews and communicates the decision to the author.
6. Revision
Authors respond point by point. Revised papers may return to reviewers.
7. Acceptance and production
Accepted work is copyedited, assigned identifiers and published.
Possible decisions
Proposed decision categories.
Accept
The manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to production checks.
Minor revision
Small changes are needed. The editor checks the revision.
Major revision
Substantial changes are needed. The revised paper is normally re-reviewed.
Reject
The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or scope. A paper may also be declined at screening, before external review.
Responsibilities
Editors
Judge manuscripts on merit and scope, without regard to the authors’ identity, nationality, institution or beliefs. Manage conflicts of interest and keep submissions confidential.
Reviewers
Give constructive, evidence-based and courteous feedback, declare conflicts, keep manuscripts confidential and not reuse unpublished material.
Authors
Respond fully and honestly to reviews, correct errors, and follow the journal’s publication ethics policies.
Appeals and complaints
Authors who believe a decision was reached unfairly can ask the Editor-in-Chief to reconsider. The appeals procedure is to be approved.
