Peer review and editorial decisions

Initial assessment and review

Research is submitted to the scientific committee. The ethics policy describes similarity screening on receipt and before final acceptance, and the selection of qualified reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

Scholarly assessment and confidentiality

Reviewers are expected to be objective and fair, provide clear reports supported by evidence and methodology, and flag similarity or suspected plagiarism.

Manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential and must not be used for personal benefit. The document calls for identity confidentiality as far as possible; it does not define a uniform blinding model or a fixed number of reviewers.

Acceptance and rejection criteria

Editorial decisions are based on originality, scholarly value, subject relevance and review reports, without discrimination for non-scholarly reasons.

The published documents do not guarantee a general review or acceptance timeframe.

Revising a manuscript

Authors revise their work in response to reviewers’ comments within the deadlines specified for them. If unable to meet a deadline, they provide a clear scholarly explanation.

The seven-day period in the ethics policy applies to clarification or revision where a possible breach is raised; it is not a general review timeframe.