Peer Review Process

The typical timeline is 1-2 weeks from submission to first decision. This includes 1-2 days for desk review, 2-3 days for editorial pre-assessment, 1-2 days for reviewer assignment, 7 days for peer review, and 1-2 days for the final decision.

Reviewers are selected based on expertise match (publications in the field), availability, and absence of conflicts of interest. Our system suggests potential reviewers, but editors make final selections. We aim for at least 2 independent reviews per manuscript.

During editorial pre-assessment, our team reviews your submission for completeness, ethical compliance, formatting standards, and scope alignment. This quality assurance step ensures manuscripts meet basic requirements before being assigned to peer reviewers, saving time for both authors and reviewers.

Yes, you can suggest preferred reviewers and request exclusions during submission. While we consider suggestions, final reviewer selection is at the editor's discretion. Suggested reviewers must have no conflicts of interest.

Authors may appeal decisions within 30 days by providing a detailed response addressing each reviewer concern. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or a different Associate Editor. Appeals based on new data or analysis are more likely to succeed.

Yes, all submissions and reviews are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss them with others. We take confidentiality breaches very seriously.

Reviewers evaluate: originality and significance, methodological rigour, clarity of presentation, appropriate use of literature, ethical compliance, and overall contribution to the field. We provide structured review forms.

If reviewer opinions diverge significantly, we may seek additional reviews. The handling editor synthesises all feedback and may consult with other editors before making a final decision.