Peer review & editorial decisions

Initial assessment

The editorial office checks scope, completeness, originality and relevant ethical information before external review. An editor may decline a manuscript at this stage and should explain the principal reason. Submission does not guarantee review or publication.

External review

Research articles sent for review are evaluated by suitably qualified researchers. The journal must identify its review model, including which identities are concealed, in its own author guidance. Reviewers must disclose competing interests, keep manuscripts confidential and provide evidence-based, respectful advice. Editors consider the reports and remain responsible for the decision; a reviewer recommendation is not a publication decision.

Decisions and revisions

Authors receive a decision and the relevant reviewer feedback. A revision should include a point-by-point response and clearly identify changes. Editors may seek further review. No fixed acceptance or review time is promised. Authors may ask the office for an update or request withdrawal before publication; an unresolved integrity concern may still require investigation.

Independence and exceptions

Editors and guest editors must not handle their own submissions or those in which they have a material competing interest. Such manuscripts require independent oversight. Editorials, announcements and other material outside the research review process must be labelled appropriately. Appeals follow the publisher complaints and appeals policy.