Peer Review Process

Scholarly articles undergo double-anonymised peer review. Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial assessment is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers. Authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities, and reviewers are not provided with information identifying the authors. The editorial team, which has access to this information, uses it solely to administer the review process and assess the independence of those involved.

Peer review aims to assess the scholarly contribution, trustworthiness and clarity of the work and to allow authors to respond substantively to identified shortcomings. The handling editor decides whether to accept a manuscript on the basis of its scholarly quality, alignment with the journal’s scope and compliance with publication ethics. Submission, review and publication are entirely free of charge for authors.

Manuscript Receipt and Initial Assessment

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editorial team checks that the submission materials are complete, that the work aligns with the journal’s scope, that the selected article type is appropriate, and that basic scholarly, formal and ethical requirements have been met. This assessment also considers whether the title, abstract and conclusions accurately reflect the content, the quality of the English-language metadata, and whether the authors have provided the required declarations and consents.

The initial assessment includes an examination of the manuscript’s originality and any potential overlap with other texts. Any textual similarity is assessed in the context of the passages concerned, their sources and the manner in which they are cited. Neither a similarity percentage nor the output of an automated detection tool constitutes, on its own, evidence of plagiarism or other misconduct.

A manuscript may be returned for completion or rejected without external peer review if it falls outside the journal’s scope, cannot be adequately assessed, or has fundamental shortcomings. In such cases, the author receives a written explanation. Sending a manuscript for peer review does not imply a commitment to accept it for publication.

Anonymisation and Protection of Submission Materials

Authors submit a title page containing identifying information separately from the anonymised manuscript. Before forwarding the manuscript to reviewers, the editorial team checks the main text, supplementary materials, acknowledgements, comments, tracked changes and file properties to ensure that no information identifying the authors remains. Information needed to verify ethics approval or funding may be held separately by the editor at this stage; all required information must be disclosed in full in the final publication.

Citations of the authors’ own work must remain academically appropriate, as anonymisation must not result in the deliberate omission of relevant literature. Where preprints are publicly available or the topic is highly specialised, author anonymity cannot be guaranteed. A reviewer who identifies an author must inform the editor, who will assess whether an independent evaluation remains possible or appoint a replacement reviewer.

Reviewer Selection and Conflicts of Interest

The handling editor selects reviewers on the basis of their demonstrated expertise and independence. External reviewers must not be members of the journal’s editorial team or editorial board, nor be affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors. The editorial team verifies reviewers’ identities, professional backgrounds and any connections to the authors. Reviewers suggested by authors undergo the same checks, and the editorial team is under no obligation to use those suggestions.

Individuals with a personal, professional, financial or other conflict of interest must not accept an invitation to review. This applies in particular to close collaborators, recent co-authors, and individuals in a supervisory relationship with an author, whether as supervisor or supervisee. Reviewers must disclose any doubts about their independence when approached or as soon as such concerns arise. The editor determines a reviewer’s suitability even where no conflict has been declared, since non-disclosure does not relieve the editorial team of its obligation to assess potential conflicts.

For interdisciplinary submissions, the editorial team selects reviewers whose combined expertise permits assessment of all essential components of the manuscript. Where the nature of the study requires it, the editorial team obtains an additional methodological, statistical or other specialist opinion. Such an opinion does not replace the two independent external reviews.

Scope of Scholarly Assessment

Reviewers assess the definition of the problem, the work’s contribution to the field, its engagement with existing research, the appropriateness of its methods or argumentation, its use of data and sources, the justification for its conclusions, and the acknowledgement of study limitations. They also evaluate the tables, figures and supplementary materials supporting the conclusions and verify that the title and abstract accurately reflect the manuscript’s content.

Assessment criteria are applied in accordance with the type of submission. For quantitative research, particular attention is paid to sampling, measurement, analyses and uncertainty in the findings. For qualitative research, the assessment considers the rationale for participant selection, analytical procedures, researcher reflexivity and the transparency of interpretation. For review articles, the appropriateness of the search strategy and source selection is central, whereas theoretical and methodological work is assessed primarily for originality, coherence of argument and grounding in existing knowledge. Practice-oriented contributions are expected to distinguish clearly between practical experience and findings established through research.

Review reports must be specific, substantive and respectful, and must distinguish essential revisions from recommendations that go beyond those requirements. Requests to add citations must be justified on scholarly grounds. Personal attacks, discriminatory statements and pressure to include citations for improper purposes are unacceptable. Any suspicion of ethical misconduct must be communicated to the editor separately from the anonymised report provided to the authors.

Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Reviewers may recommend acceptance without substantive revisions, acceptance subject to minor revisions, major revision followed by reassessment, or rejection. Every recommendation must be accompanied by a reasoned explanation. The handling editor evaluates the substance and persuasiveness of the reports and communicates the decision to the author, together with any requirements for the next stage.

Where reviewers’ assessments differ substantially, the editor examines the reasons for the disagreement and may seek an additional independent review. Decisions are not reached by mechanically counting votes or averaging recommendations. If the editor departs from the reviewers’ recommendations, the scholarly reasons for doing so are recorded and communicated to the author to the extent necessary to explain the decision.

Author Revisions and Reassessment

The author receives anonymised review reports and instructions for revision. A revised manuscript must be accompanied by a clear, point-by-point response identifying the changes made. Any decision not to implement a requested change must be supported by a substantive explanation; disagreement with a reviewer is not, in itself, grounds for rejection.

A substantially revised manuscript is submitted for further scholarly assessment, preferably by the original reviewers. Minor revisions are checked by the editor or, where appropriate, a reviewer. If the revisions materially alter the methods, results or conclusions, the editor determines the scope of reassessment. A manuscript is accepted only after all scholarly and ethical requirements have been addressed, and the author must approve the final text before publication.

Confidentiality and the Use of Artificial Intelligence

Manuscripts, supplementary materials, review reports and all related correspondence are confidential, including after the review process has concluded. Reviewers must not use unpublished findings for personal advantage, contact authors directly, or involve another person in the assessment without the editor’s prior approval and without ensuring that the person maintains confidentiality and is independent.

Reviewers must not use generative artificial intelligence to prepare a scholarly review report. Neither reviewers nor editors may upload confidential manuscripts, review reports or personal data to publicly available generative AI tools. Scholarly assessment, reviewer selection and the final decision on a manuscript remain the exclusive responsibility of the individual editors and reviewers concerned.

Independence in Special Circumstances

A manuscript authored by a member of the editorial team or editorial board is assigned to an independent editor with no conflict of interest. The author takes no part in reviewer selection, administration of the review process or decisions concerning their own article. The published article must disclose the author’s editorial role and explain how the independence of the process was ensured. If an independent process cannot be secured, the article cannot be accepted.

The same rules apply to special issue contributions and guest editors, while the journal’s editorial leadership retains oversight of the quality and ethics of the entire process. Editorial announcements and administrative notices are not subject to external peer review and are clearly distinguished from scholarly articles.

Timelines, Record Keeping and Appeals

The editorial team agrees deadlines for review reports and author revisions when assigning each stage, taking account of the scope and nature of the work. Neither acceptance nor a fixed acceptance date is guaranteed, but the author is always informed of any substantial delay. Authors may request an update on the status of their submission at any time or give written notice of the withdrawal of a manuscript that has not yet been published.

The editorial team retains records of manuscript versions, reviewer selection, conflicts of interest, review reports, author responses and decisions. Access is restricted to authorised individuals. Published articles display the actual dates of receipt, acceptance and publication and, where applicable, the date of substantial revision. Review reports and reviewer identities are not made publicly available. Authors may submit a reasoned appeal against a decision in accordance with the procedure described in the Publication Ethics section.