Review model
Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise. The editor may seek additional reports when reviews conflict, specialist assessment is needed, or a revised manuscript raises new issues.
Reviewer selection
Editors select reviewers on the basis of expertise, independence, availability, and the absence of relevant conflicts. Suggested reviewers may be considered, but the journal is not obliged to invite them. Editors will not knowingly use reviewers whose relationship to the work could compromise impartiality.
Reviewer responsibilities
- Evaluate the manuscript fairly, constructively, and within the agreed period.
- Assess originality, methods, analysis, interpretation, reporting, ethics, and relevance.
- Declare conflicts of interest before accepting the assignment.
- Keep the manuscript, data, correspondence, and review confidential.
- Do not use unpublished material for personal advantage.
- Do not upload confidential files or text to unapproved generative-AI services.
Editorial decisions
Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the decision. The handling editor is responsible for evaluating the evidence, resolving material inconsistencies, and ensuring that policy and ethical issues are addressed. The editor may depart from a recommendation when a clear scholarly or policy reason exists.
Confidentiality and anonymity
The journal takes reasonable steps to preserve review anonymity but cannot guarantee that identity will never be inferred from the manuscript, citations, preprints, public data, or specialist knowledge. Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors.