Peer Review Policy

Double-Anonymous Review

Authors do not learn the identity of their reviewers, and reviewers are not told who the authors are. Reviewer identities are never disclosed to authors, and reviewer reports are released to authors only when the handling editor forwards them.

The Process

1. Initial check. The editor confirms the manuscript is within scope and complete. Submissions that are out of scope may be declined without external review.
2. Reviewer invitation. Reviewers receive the title, abstract and keywords, and accept or decline before seeing the full text.
3. Review. Each reviewer submits comments for the author, confidential comments for the editor, and a recommendation.
4. Decision. The editor weighs the reports and issues a decision: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject.
5. Revision. Authors submit a revised manuscript together with a written response to each reviewer.
6. Reassessment. The revision and the responses are returned to the original reviewers, who state whether they are satisfied. A further round is opened only after those verdicts are in.

Timelines

State the target time to first decision and the time normally allowed for a review.

Appeals

Describe how an author may appeal a decision, and who considers appeals.