All manuscripts submitted to the journal are handled in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policies and the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal operates a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during the review process.

 

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Each submission undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for its relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, compliance with submission and formatting requirements, overall scholarly quality, and adherence to applicable publication ethics requirements.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, fail to meet the minimum scholarly or editorial requirements, or raise substantial ethical concerns may be rejected without external peer review.

 

2. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers are required to disclose any actual or potential financial, institutional, professional, academic or personal conflict of interest that could affect, or reasonably be perceived as affecting, their impartiality.

An editor or reviewer with a relevant conflict of interest must not participate in the assessment or decision-making process for the manuscript concerned. The manuscript will instead be assigned to another suitably qualified and independent editor or reviewer.

 

3. Similarity and Publication Ethics Screening

Before or during the editorial assessment, submitted manuscripts may be screened using text-similarity detection software to identify potentially problematic textual overlap with previously published or publicly available material.

Similarity reports are assessed by the editorial team and are not treated as automatic evidence of plagiarism. Where inappropriate textual overlap, plagiarism, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, fabrication, falsification or other potential breaches of publication ethics are suspected, the matter is investigated in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics procedures and relevant COPE guidance.

 

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully complete the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area.

Under the journal’s double-blind review model, reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities, and authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities. Authors are therefore required to prepare manuscripts in a manner that does not disclose their identity within the text or accompanying files intended for reviewers.

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts with regard to:

• originality and significance;
• methodological appropriateness and rigour;
• validity and clarity of the results and conclusions;
• quality and relevance of the scholarly contribution;
• adequacy of the use and citation of relevant literature;
• clarity and coherence of presentation; and
• relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and form part of, but do not solely determine, the editorial decision.

 

5. Editorial Decision

Once the required reviewer reports have been received, the handling editor evaluates the reviewers’ comments, the authors’ manuscript and any other relevant editorial considerations and submits an editorial recommendation.

The possible decisions are:

• accept;
• minor revision;
• major revision; or
• reject.

Where reviewer reports differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional independent review or otherwise obtain further expert advice before a decision is made.

The Editor-in-Chief, or another authorised independent editor where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, has responsibility for the final editorial decision. Decisions are based on the scholarly merits of the manuscript, the peer-review reports, compliance with the journal’s editorial and ethical requirements, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

 

6. Revision and Re-evaluation

Where revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ and editors’ comments within the timeframe specified by the Editorial Office.

Authors should clearly indicate how each comment has been addressed or provide a reasoned explanation where a suggested change has not been made.

Depending on the nature and extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be evaluated by the handling editor or returned to the original or additional reviewers for further assessment. A request for revision does not constitute a guarantee of subsequent acceptance.

 

7. Final Publication Decision

A manuscript is accepted for publication only after the editorial and peer-review requirements have been satisfactorily completed.

The final decision is made on the basis of the manuscript’s scholarly quality, methodological soundness, originality, relevance to the journal, peer-review assessments and compliance with publication ethics requirements.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by commercial considerations or by personal, institutional, financial or other inappropriate interests.

Indicative peer-review period: 4–8 weeks

Indicative time to first editorial decision: 2–4 weeks

These timeframes are indicative and may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the number of revision rounds and other circumstances affecting the editorial process.

 

Conflict of Interest and Editorial Independence

The journal is committed to maintaining editorial independence and to managing actual or potential conflict of interest throughout the submission, peer-review and decision-making processes.

Editors must not handle manuscripts where they have a financial, institutional, professional, academic or personal relationship that could compromise, or reasonably be perceived as compromising, their impartiality.

If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest in relation to a submitted manuscript, they must take no part in selecting reviewers, evaluating reviewer reports or making the editorial decision.

Responsibility for the manuscript will be transferred to an appropriately qualified independent editor or member of the Editorial Board who has no relevant conflict of interest. The designated editor will assume responsibility for the peer-review and editorial decision-making process for that submission.

Where sufficient independence cannot be ensured within the Editorial Board, an appropriately qualified independent guest editor may be appointed to manage the manuscript.

The same principles apply to manuscripts submitted by members of the Editorial Board, journal staff or individuals closely associated with the journal. Such manuscripts must be handled independently of the author concerned and must undergo the same editorial and peer-review standards as other submissions.

Editorial decisions are made on the basis of the academic and scholarly merits of the manuscript and its compliance with the journal’s editorial and ethical requirements, without inappropriate influence arising from commercial, institutional, personal or other interests.