Independent minds. Rigorous review.
A complete double-blind peer-review framework.
Review model
The proposed model requires at least two independent subject specialists for research manuscripts. Author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors. Editors may know both identities for administration. Reviewers should be external to the editorial team and free of relevant conflicts. Suitable national and international experts may be invited on the basis of expertise, not nationality alone.
Editorial screening
The office checks scope, completeness, anonymous files, declarations, research permissions and overlap concerns. Out-of-scope or substantively incomplete work may be declined before external review with an explanation. A similarity report supports human assessment; a percentage is not an automatic verdict.
Assessment and supplementary material
Reviewers examine originality, methodological fitness, analysis, reproducibility, ethical safeguards, interpretation, limitations and references. Supplementary data and code necessary to substantiate the conclusions should be included in the assessment. Reports must provide specific, respectful and actionable observations. Reviewer recommendations inform—but do not replace—a reasoned editorial decision.
Revisions and decisions
Outcomes are acceptance, minor revision, major revision with further assessment, or rejection. Authors submit an anonymous revised manuscript and a point-by-point response. Substantive disagreements may be referred to a third specialist. Editors must explain their final decision and record the basis for it. Acceptance is never guaranteed at submission.
Conflicts, special issues and confidentiality
Reviewers must disclose recent collaboration, shared institutional interests, personal relationships and financial interests that could affect judgement. Editors who authored a paper must not manage its evaluation. Special issues use the same independence criteria. Reports remain confidential; they are not published with names without consent. Suggested reviewers must be independently verified and may be declined.
Timing and withdrawal
No historical review-time statistics are asserted. Each acknowledgement should indicate an estimated schedule, and delays should be explained to the corresponding author. Authors may request withdrawal before publication; the office must confirm the status in writing. Receipt, revision, acceptance and publication dates belong in the article record once verified.
Editorial framework prepared for formal adoption. See the transparency page for confirmed operating information.