PEER REVIEW PROCESS POLICY

Peer Review Process Policy

1. Review Principles and Model

The journal employs double-anonymous peer review. Author identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors during the review process. Editors retain access to the information necessary to manage the process.

Authors submit a separate title page containing author information and remove identifying information from the review files, including document properties. The editor checks that the manuscript has been appropriately anonymized before sending it for review. Identities may sometimes be inferred from the research context; reviewers who recognize an author must report any potential conflict to the editor.

2. Scope of Peer Review

All research articles, review articles, and community service articles received through regular submission undergo peer review before acceptance.

Administrative notices, corrections, and retractions are handled through editorial assessment in accordance with the relevant policies and are not presented as articles that have undergone regular peer review.

3. Submission and Initial Screening

Manuscripts are submitted through the journal system. The editor checks:

  • Alignment with the journal's focus, scope, and accepted manuscript types.
  • Completeness of the submission files and compliance with the Author Guidelines.
  • Clarity of the objectives, contribution, methods, and presentation of results.
  • Originality and the completeness of statements concerning ethics, funding, conflicts of interest, and AI use, where relevant.

The editor may return a manuscript for completion or reject it without external review (desk rejection) if it does not meet the basic requirements. The reasons for the decision are communicated to the authors.

Similarity-check results are used as an aid and assessed in context, rather than serving as the sole basis for a decision.

4. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assessed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. These assessments must come from different reviewers and must not consist solely of editorial checks.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of competence, availability, and the absence of conflicts of interest that could compromise objectivity. Relevant family relationships, supervisory relationships, close collaborations, or financial interests must be avoided.

Reviewer suggestions from authors, if accepted by the journal, are not binding on the editor. The identities, competence, and independence of prospective reviewers are still verified.

5. Assessment Criteria

Reviewers assess relevance, originality, methodological appropriateness, adequacy of evidence, analysis, discussion, limitations, conclusions, and ethical compliance.

For review articles, assessment considers source selection methods and the quality of synthesis appropriate to the review type. For community service articles, assessment considers partner needs, target-group involvement, implementation, evaluation of achievements, and the basis for claims of benefit.

Review reports must be objective, constructive, and supported by reasons. Reviewers must not request irrelevant citations to increase their own citation counts or those of the journal.

6. Revision and Re-Review

The editor communicates relevant reviewer comments to the authors. Authors submit a revised manuscript and a response to each comment, including a scientific explanation when they do not follow a particular recommendation.

The revision deadline is stated in the decision letter. Requests for an extension may be submitted to the editor.

The editor may return the revision to the reviewers or seek an additional assessment. Revision does not guarantee acceptance. If reviewer recommendations differ, the editor evaluates the substance of the disagreement and may involve an additional reviewer; decisions are not determined solely by vote counting.

7. Editorial Decisions

Possible decisions are:

  •  
  • Minor revision.
  • Major revision.
  •  

The final decision is the editor's responsibility and is based on scientific quality, the review findings, and the authors' responses. The publisher, sponsors, or payment of publication fees must not determine acceptance.

Manuscripts authored by editors, editorial board members, or closely connected parties are handled by an independent editor. Parties with a conflict of interest do not participate in reviewer selection or decisions concerning the manuscript.

8. Confidentiality and AI Use

Manuscripts and review communications are treated as confidential information. Reviewers must not share a manuscript or involve others without the editor's permission.

AI use is governed by the journal's AI Use Policy. Manuscripts or confidential information must not be uploaded to services that do not guarantee confidentiality. Scientific assessment and editorial decisions remain the responsibility of humans.

9. Timelines, Communication, and Appeals

The journal endeavors to handle manuscripts promptly. The time required depends on manuscript readiness, reviewer availability, assessment complexity, and the number of revision rounds. The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a specified period.

Authors may request progress updates through the system or the journal's official contact channels. Appeals against decisions must be accompanied by scientific reasons, new evidence, or an explanation of procedural errors. Appeals are reviewed without conflicts of interest and do not guarantee a change in the decision.

10. Documentation and Review

Journal management retains reviewer assignments, review reports, author responses, revised versions, and the grounds for decisions within the journal system under restricted access.

This policy takes effect on the date announced and is reviewed periodically.