Review Process Policy

Principles

Every research manuscript is evaluated by experts on academic merit. Reviews constructive, evidence-based and free of discrimination based on nationality, institution, gender, religion or political affiliation. The journal follows COPE guidance and treats manuscripts and reviewer reports as confidential documents.

Stages

Stage	What happens	Target time
1. Submission check	Editorial office checks completeness, template, ethics and declarations	3 working days
2. Desk screening	An editor assesses fit with aims and scope, originality, basic quality and plagiarism/similarity report; may reject without external review	14 days
3. Blind peer review	External reviewer(s) assess the manuscript	2 weeks
4. Editorial decision	The Editor decides: accept, minor revision, major revision or reject	1 weeks after reports
5. Revision	Authors revise and submit a response letter point by point	14 days. Should the author(s) need some more time, they can communicate to the editor.
6. Re-review	Revised manuscripts may go back to the same reviewers or an editor	7 days
7. Acceptance and production	Similarity re-check, copyediting, language check, proofs, DOI and publication	About a week

Anonymity

Reviewers' identities are not revealed to authors. The journal lists its reviewers once a year.

Reviewer selection

• At least one reviewer with relevant expertise, who has no conflict of interest and is not from the authors' institution.
• An additional reviewer is invited whenever necessary.

Review criteria

Reviewers assess mainly the novelty and contribution to the literature; clarity of the research question and core argument. If the manuscript is a research article, the assessment will also include theoretical framing; methodological soundness and transparency; adequacy of primary-source and data engagement; and quality of evidence and interpretation.

Reviewer(s) have the obligations to:

• Keep the manuscript and the review confidential; do not share or discuss it, or use its content for personal benefit.
• Disclose conflicts of interest and decline if unqualified.
• Write respectful, specific and evidence-based comments; do not make personal remarks.
• Not upload manuscripts into, or use, generative AI tools when preparing reports, to protect confidentiality and independent judgement.
• Alert the editor, whenever necessary, to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data problems or ethical concerns.

Editorial decisions

The Editor-in-Chief takes the final decision based on reviewer reports and the editor's own assessment; reviewer recommendations are advisory. Decisions are communicated with the reviewer comments. Editors who are co-authors, colleagues or have a conflict do not take part (see Conflict of Interest).

Appeals and complaints

Authors who disagree with a decision may write to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days, giving specific grounds (such as a factual error by a reviewer or evidence of bias). The appeal is considered by the Editor-in-Chief and an independent editor, who may seek a new review. Only one appeal is allowed per manuscript, and the outcome is final.

Withdrawal

Authors may withdraw a manuscript before acceptance by written request giving the reason, with no penalty. Withdrawal after acceptance is discouraged. Withdrawal during review to avoid an integrity inquiry does not stop the inquiry.

Transparency

Each published article shows the dates received, revised, and accepted.