Fair, constructive, and evidence-led.

The journal’s review model is designed to protect scientific quality while giving authors clear and useful feedback.

Initial checks

The editorial office checks scope, completeness, originality indicators, reporting, ethics statements, and basic presentation.

Editorial assessment

An editor evaluates relevance, novelty, methodological soundness, and suitability for independent review.

Independent review

Normally, at least two suitably qualified reviewers assess the work and provide confidential, constructive reports.

Author revision

Authors respond point by point and provide a clearly marked revision when changes are requested.

Editorial decision

The responsible editor considers the manuscript, reviewer reports, and author response. Final authority rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Production checks

Accepted manuscripts undergo authorship, disclosure, formatting, and proof checks before publication.

Review model

Single-anonymized review

Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors unless a reviewer chooses to sign a report. Author identities are available to editors and reviewers. The model will be confirmed before formal launch.

Editorial safeguards

Confidentiality and conflicts

Editors and reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential, declare relevant conflicts, avoid using privileged information, and decline assignments outside their competence.

Decisions

Possible outcomes

Decline before review, reject, major revision, minor revision, accept subject to checks, or accept. Revision is an invitation to reconsider and does not guarantee acceptance.

Appeals

Reasoned reconsideration

Authors may submit a concise, evidence-based appeal addressing the decision and editorial concerns. Appeals are assessed independently where practicable.