Peer Review Process
Predictable timelines, anonymized reviewers, and structured editorial decisions.
- Days 1–7
Initial Editorial Screening
On submission, a handling editor checks scope, formatting, ethics declarations, and similarity-index results. Manuscripts that pass screening are advanced to peer review; those that do not are returned with a clear reason within 7 days.
- Day 7
Anonymized Reviewer Selection
The handling editor invites two independent reviewers from our subject-matter pool. Reviewers receive a manuscript stripped of author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and identifying metadata. Authors and reviewers remain mutually anonymous throughout the process (double-blind).
- Days 7–28
21-Day Double-Blind Review Loop
Reviewers have 21 days to submit structured reports covering significance, methods, results, presentation, and ethics. Late or declined invitations trigger automatic backup-reviewer assignment so timelines remain predictable.
- Day 28+
Editorial Decision
The handling editor consolidates reviewer recommendations and issues one of four decisions: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject. Authors receive the full anonymized reviewer reports and a clear path to resubmission where applicable.
How we keep reviews anonymous
- Author names, affiliations, and acknowledgements are stripped before sending to reviewers.
- Reviewer identities are never disclosed to authors, even after publication.
- Document metadata (file properties, track-changes history) is sanitized by the editorial office.
- Conflicting reviewers — co-authors within the last 3 years or same-institution colleagues — are excluded automatically.