Submission and editorial screening

A submission must be made by an author or coauthor, in accordance with the authorship and contributions policy (CRediT). The editorial team checks scope, author guidelines, authorship requirements and integrity before referring the manuscript for review. Third-party submissions must be regularized by an author before review begins.

Similarity and integrity

Similarity reports support screening but require contextual human assessment of passages, sources, citations and legitimate overlap. A similarity percentage alone establishes neither plagiarism nor automatic rejection. Concerns are examined under the plagiarism and ethics policies, with an opportunity for authors to provide clarification.

Independent review and decision

Research articles passing screening are referred to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise, using double-anonymous review. Reviewers may be external experts or editorial board members, provided they have no conflicts of interest.

The responsible editor makes the final decision, considering the reasoning in the reports, authors’ responses to editorial requests and journal policies. The outcome may be acceptance, a request for revisions or rejection. Reports inform the editorial decision; they are not votes and do not guarantee acceptance.

Contribution types and assessment

Book reviews undergo editorial assessment by two responsible persons without conflicts of interest, with specialist assessment when needed. Original research texts are classified and reviewed as articles. Translations are assessed by at least two independent reviewers competent in the subject and languages involved, considering fidelity, terminological precision and scholarly relevance. The contribution type and applicable process are identified in the publication.

Consult the specific guidance for book reviews and translations in the author guidelines.

Articles by editors and board members

Articles by editors, board members and guest editors follow the same criteria and procedures as other submissions, without priority or exemption from review.

An author holding an editorial role must not select reviewers, handle the review or decide on their own article. The process is assigned to another editor without conflicts of interest. If the journal’s responsible editor is an author or must recuse themselves, a non-conflicted editorial board member will designate an independent handling editor, who may be external to the journal.

The assignment, recusals and reasoned decision must be recorded in the editorial system. If the article is published, its conflict-of-interest statement will disclose the author’s role in the journal and the independent handling of the review, without identifying reviewers.

Thematic collections and guest editors

Thematic collections require prior editorial approval, with a topic aligned with the journal’s aims and scope, designated organizers and defined submission conditions. The qualifications and experience of guest editors will be checked and approved by the editorial team.

Articles will be clearly identified as part of the collection and will follow the same requirements as regular submissions, including external review by at least two independent reviewers. An invitation to participate does not guarantee acceptance.

Guest editors may organize the call, oversee the review process and recommend decisions. The journal’s responsible editor retains oversight and final responsibility for the content.

Conflicts must be disclosed. Guest editors do not handle or decide the assessment of their own work. These articles will be handled independently and must not exceed 25% of the collection’s total number of articles. Appointments, recusals and decisions will be recorded in the editorial system.

Conflicting reports

When reports diverge, the editor will examine their arguments, the relevance of objections and authors’ responses to editorial requests. Depending on the case, the editor may request clarification from reviewers, revisions from authors or an additional independent report.

A third report is not required for every disagreement and does not serve as a tie-breaking vote. The decision must be reasoned and communicated to authors, stating the grounds and, where applicable, the necessary revisions. Requests for reconsideration follow the appeal procedure in the journal’s ethics policy.

Timing and revisions

The interval of 30–60 days is an estimate for initial review, not a guaranteed deadline or a verified historical average. Duration depends on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity and further rounds; the editor communicates applicable deadlines. Seven days is a reference for simple adjustments, not a uniform deadline for all revisions. The deadline is stated in the revision request, and authors may request a justified extension. The editor assesses the revised manuscript and response to editorial requests and may request further review. Authors’ confirmation of the final version forms part of editorial preparation and does not replace the acceptance decision.

Anonymity and confidentiality

Authors’ and reviewers’ identities are not communicated to one another during review; they are accessible to the responsible editorial team. Double-anonymous review is a procedure, not a guarantee that identities can never be inferred from the topic or previous dissemination. Possible identification and conflicts must be reported to the editor. The review file must omit names, affiliations, identifying acknowledgements and personal data in file properties, while retaining necessary references; self-citations should use impersonal wording. The named CRediT statement is submitted separately and does not accompany the review file. Manuscripts, reports and communications are confidential; AI use must comply with the journal’s specific policy.

Reviewers’ reports are intended exclusively for internal consideration by the editorial team and are not made available to authors, even in anonymized form. The responsible editor communicates with authors through a reasoned editorial decision and, where applicable, instructions for revising the manuscript, without forwarding reviewers’ reports, forms or files.

Related policies

Consult the author guidelines and the authorship (CRediT), plagiarism, ethics and AI policies. Complaint and appeal deadlines defined in the ethics policy are distinct from manuscript review and revision deadlines.

Author guidelines · Authorship and contributions (CRediT) · Plagiarism · Ethics · AI use

Revised: 17 October 2026.