Double-blind review workflow
Submission and technical check
The editorial office checks completeness, scope, anonymisation, declarations, file readability and obvious integrity concerns.
Editorial screening
An editor assesses relevance, originality, scholarly quality and whether external review is justified. Desk rejection may occur here.
Reviewer selection
Normally at least two independent reviewers are invited based on relevant expertise, availability and absence of conflicts.
Independent evaluation
Reviewers assess contribution, method, evidence, interpretation, clarity, ethics, references and limitations. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.
Editorial decision
The editor evaluates the reports rather than mechanically counting recommendations. Conflicting reports may require additional review.
Revision and response
Authors submit a clean revision, tracked changes where requested and a point-by-point response. Major revisions may return to reviewers.
Acceptance and production
Accepted manuscripts undergo metadata checks, copyediting, author proof review, publication and post-publication correction support.
Timing
The journal does not guarantee unrealistic two-day peer review or instant publication. Timelines depend on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability and revision quality. Authors will receive status updates when meaningful milestones occur.
Reviewer confidentiality
Manuscripts and review materials are confidential. Reviewers must not upload them into public generative-AI systems, use unpublished ideas, or share materials without editorial permission.
Appeals
Authors may appeal by identifying a specific procedural or factual error. Disagreement alone is not sufficient. The appeal will be considered by an editor not solely responsible for the original decision where practicable.