Peer review policy

Roles

The editor-in-chief delegates manuscript decisions to action editors with relevant field expertise. Action editors invite referees, read reports, and draft decision letters; the editor-in-chief may take over disputed cases, appeals, or integrity investigations.

Referee selection

We aim for at least two independent referee reports on each round. Referees must disclose recent co-authorship, close collaboration, or employer overlap with guessed identities; editors replace referees when independence is unclear. Early-career scholars are encouraged where senior colleagues attest to readiness.

Timelines

Desk review normally completes within two weeks. Referees are asked for six-week turnaround, with a reminder at roughly day 35. Authors waiting longer receive a short status note from the editorial office.

Reports and decisions

Decision letters summarise the consensus of reports and name material changes required for acceptance. “Major revision” implies another full round with at least one returning referee where possible. “Reject after review” means the editor believes the manuscript is unlikely to meet the journal’s bar even with revision; a concise appeals memo may be sent to the editor-in-chief (see Information for authors).

Transparency and bias

Editors must not use referees primarily to extract free “extra rounds” of consulting. Coercive citation—asking authors to add irrelevant references—is misconduct; report it through the publisher integrity route listed on the contact page.