Peer review
Research articles, reviews, and theoretical or methodological papers undergo double blind peer review: the process seeks to conceal author and reviewer identities from each other during assessment.
- Initial editorial assessment. The editor checks scope, presentation, integrity, and readiness for review. Submissions may be returned for adjustments or declined before external review if they do not meet editorial requirements.
- Reviewer selection. Specialists with relevant expertise and no conflicts that compromise their independence are invited. Assignments take account of the subject and reviewer availability; the editor may request additional reports when needed.
- Review report. Reviewers assess originality, clarity, relevance, methodological or argumentative rigor, support for conclusions, transparency, and ethical considerations. They provide reasoned comments and an editorial recommendation.
- Decision and revision. The editor communicates acceptance, a request for changes, or rejection, explaining the decision in light of the reports. Revised manuscripts may undergo further review. Timeframes are communicated for each process, without any guarantee of acceptance.
Manuscripts and review reports are confidential. Reviewers must not use unpublished information for personal benefit or upload content to external AI services without permission from the editor and authors. They must disclose any conflict of interest or suspected irregularity.
An editor with a conflict of interest, including authorship of the submission, must withdraw from assessment and decision making, which will be assigned to an independent, qualified person. Appeals should be sent to the editorial contact with specific grounds; they will receive reasoned consideration and an independent assessment when necessary. Editorials and institutional notices will be identified as such and undergo editorial review.
