Peer Review Process
Transparent, timely double-blind review
All submissions pass an editorial desk check, then move to double-blind review. We surface every reviewer remark to authors and keep timelines predictable.
Workflow
- Desk check: scope, ethics, and formatting.
- Handling editor assignment and double-blind reviewer invitation.
- Reviewer reports (typically 2) on methods, results, originality.
- Decision: minor/major revision, accept, or reject.
- Revision validation, final check, and production handoff.
Standards
- • Anonymized files for double-blind review.
- • Point-by-point response to every reviewer comment.
- • COPE and ICMJE guidance followed for ethics concerns.
- • Reasonable extension options for complex revisions.
Expectations
- • Objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback.
- • Conflict of interest disclosure and recusal when needed.
- • Suggestions to improve reproducibility and data clarity.
- • Checks for methodological and statistical soundness.