The journal operates a rigorous double-blind peer-review process: the identities of authors and reviewers are withheld from one another throughout.
The process
- Submission & acknowledgement. Manuscripts are received through the editorial portal and acknowledged automatically.
- Editorial desk check. An editor screens the manuscript for scope, originality, similarity, and conformity to the guidelines. Out-of-scope work may be declined without external review.
- Reviewer assignment. At least two independent experts are invited to review, selected for subject expertise and absence of conflict.
- Review. Reviewers assess the work on defined criteria — relevance, originality, soundness, significance, clarity, and contribution — and recommend a decision.
- Decision. The editor weighs the reviews and communicates a decision: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject.
- Revision & re-review. Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated, by the original reviewers where appropriate, until a final decision is reached.
- Production & publication. Accepted articles are copy-edited, assigned to an issue, and published.
Indicative timelines
| Stage | Target |
|---|
| Initial editorial decision | 1–2 weeks |
| Peer review | 4–6 weeks |
| Decision after review | Within 1 week of reviews |
Timelines are targets and may be adjusted by the editorial board.
Reviewer criteria
Reviewers evaluate each manuscript for its relevance to the journal’s scope, originality of contribution, soundness of method and argument, significance of findings, clarity of writing, and overall contribution to the field, together with confidential comments to the editor.
Appeals
Authors may appeal a decision by writing to the editorial office with a reasoned response. See the Publication Ethics statement for the complaints and appeals procedure.