Policy version 1.0 · Effective date 2026-10-20
Initial screening
The editor checks scope, contribution, file/metadata completeness, ethics and possible conflicts. Technical corrections or a reasoned desk rejection may follow. Malware scanning does not establish originality or scientific quality.
Masking and two reviewers
The default is double-anonymous review: reviewers do not receive the author-identifying original and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. At least two independent subject experts assess the current version. Authors, close collaborators and conflicted individuals do not review the work. Potential unmasking through preprints or self-citations is disclosed to the editor.
Assessment and decision
Assessment covers relevance, originality, method, reliability, limitations, presentation and references. Comments to authors are separated from confidential editorial comments. Recommendations are acceptance, minor/major revision or rejection. Editors make a reasoned decision based on the evidence; scores do not automatically accept papers. An editor’s own paper requires independent handling.
Timing, confidentiality and revision
Reviewer invitations specify a deadline and delays are explained to authors. Unsupported promises such as review within 24 hours are not made. Unpublished manuscripts and reports are confidential. Authors submit a new version and response; old reports do not automatically count for the new version. Reports and reviewer names are not normally published.
Official references
References informed this policy; a link does not imply membership, accreditation or confirmed indexing.