Peer Review Process
1. Submission and editorial screening
New submissions are checked for completeness, scope, basic reporting requirements, originality and relevant declarations. A manuscript may be returned for correction or declined at this stage if it is unsuitable for peer review.
2. Reviewer selection
Manuscripts selected for external review are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers should be independent of the authors and should disclose conflicts that could affect their assessment.
3. Review assessment
Reviewers are asked to assess scientific relevance, originality, methodology, analysis, interpretation, reporting quality, ethical considerations and the adequacy of conclusions. Reviewer reports are treated as confidential editorial communications.
4. Revision
Where revision is requested, authors should respond to editorial/reviewer comments and identify substantive manuscript changes. A revised manuscript may be returned to reviewers when further assessment is required.
5. Editorial decision
Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript, reviewer assessments, revision response, journal scope and applicable publishing standards. Possible outcomes include revision, acceptance or rejection.
Confidentiality and responsible AI use
Submitted manuscripts are confidential. Reviewers and editors should not share manuscript material outside the editorial process or upload it to external AI systems when confidentiality cannot be assured. Any permitted AI-assisted use should not replace human scholarly judgment.