01
Initial editorial screening
The editorial office checks journal fit, completeness, originality indicators, anonymisation and required ethics declarations. Manuscripts that are clearly outside scope or not ready for review may be declined without external review.
02
External assessment
Research articles are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.
Authors and reviewers are not shown one another's identities during the review process. Editors select reviewers on the basis of expertise, independence and absence of relevant conflicts.
- Model
- Double-anonymous
- Reviewers
- Normally at least two
- Reports
- Structured and confidential
- Final decision
- Responsible editor
03
Decisions and revisions
- 01
Editorial check
Scope and integrity
Files, declarations and suitability are reviewed.
- 02
Peer review
Independent reports
Reviewers assess contribution, methods, reasoning and presentation.
- 03
Author revision
Point-by-point response
Authors address comments and identify changes.
- 04
Editorial decision
Reasoned outcome
The editor weighs the reports and the manuscript rather than counting recommendations.
- 05
Production
After acceptance
Copyediting, metadata, proofs and the version of record are prepared.
04
Confidentiality and conflicts
Manuscripts and review material are confidential. Reviewers may not use unpublished information for personal advantage and must decline assignments where a conflict could affect—or reasonably appear to affect—their judgement.
05
Appeals
Authors may submit a focused appeal identifying a material procedural or factual error. Disagreement with an academic judgement alone is not sufficient. Appeals are handled by an editor who was not the sole author of the disputed decision where practicable.