Model and Purpose
The journal uses external peer review to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, clarity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.
The journal operates a double-anonymized peer-review system in which authors and reviewers are not routinely informed of each other’s identities. Manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
Peer review supports editorial decision-making but does not transfer responsibility for publication decisions from editors to reviewers.
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject expertise, methodological competence, independence from the authors, absence of relevant conflicts of interest, availability, and ability to provide constructive and objective assessments.
Editors seek to avoid conflicts of interest and excessive reliance on a limited group of reviewers and aim to ensure a balanced and appropriate review process.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
• accept review assignments only when they possess appropriate expertise and can complete the review within the requested timeframe;
• he reviewer confirms by way of a statutory declaration that the manuscript was submitted to him for review in a completely anonymous form;
• decline invitations where conflicts of interest or other circumstances may impair objective assessment;
• maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscripts and associated materials;
• not use information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, institutional, or commercial advantage;
• disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest promptly;
• provide objective, evidence-based, respectful, and sufficiently detailed comments;
• identify significant methodological, ethical, reporting, statistical, citation, or originality concerns;
• not upload manuscripts, reviewer reports, or confidential editorial materials to public or third-party generative AI systems unless explicitly authorized by the journal.
Decisions and Revision
Editorial decisions may include rejection, major revision, minor revision, conditional acceptance, or acceptance.
When revisions are requested, authors should provide a detailed response explaining how reviewer and editor comments have been addressed or why proposed changes have not been adopted.
Editors may seek additional peer review, statistical review, specialist consultation, research-integrity assessment, or clarification regarding ethical approvals, consent procedures, authorship, or underlying data.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Final editorial decisions are made by the responsible editor, who records the rationale for the decision.
Reviewer Misconduct and Performance
The journal investigates suspected peer-review misconduct, including breaches of confidentiality, plagiarism, appropriation of ideas, undisclosed conflicts of interest, fabricated reviews, peer-review manipulation, coercive citation, discriminatory or inappropriate language, and unauthorized use of artificial intelligence tools.
Where concerns are substantiated, the journal may discontinue use of the reviewer, notify relevant institutions or organizations where appropriate, amend the scholarly record if necessary, and take other proportionate corrective actions.
Reviewer performance may be monitored with regard to timeliness, quality, constructiveness, reliability, responsiveness, and adherence to ethical and professional standards.