Peer Review Process
The journal employs a rigorous, transparent, and fair peer review process to evaluate manuscripts based on technical soundness, ethical conduct, and adherence to submission guidelines. The process is designed to be fast, thorough, and supportive of interdisciplinary research.
Stages of Peer Review
- 1. Initial Screening: Managing editors screen submissions for compliance with editorial policies, ethical standards, and scope. Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria are rejected without external review.
- 2. Assignment to Section Editor: Manuscripts passing screening are assigned to an editor with relevant expertise. The editor evaluates the manuscript and decides whether to send it for external peer review, invite revisions, or reject it.
- 3. External Peer Review: The journal uses single-anonymized peer review by default, where reviewers’ identities are hidden, but authors’ identities are known. Reviewers are selected based on expertise. Typically, 2–3 external reviewers assess each manuscript.
a. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on seven criteria:
- The study presents original research.
- Results have not been published elsewhere.
- Experiments and analyses are performed to a high technical standard.
- Methods are described in sufficient detail.
- Conclusions are supported by the data.
- The study adheres to ethical standards.
- Data are fully available per community standards.
b. Reviewers provide constructive feedback, focusing on technical rigor rather than subjective importance. Confidential comments are limited to competing interest declarations; ethical concerns are directed to the editorial office.
4. Editorial Decision: The section editor makes a decision (accept, revise, reject) based on reviewer reports and their assessment. Authors receive a decision letter with reviewer comments and a roadmap for revisions, if applicable.
5. Published Peer Review History: Authors can opt to publish the peer review history alongside the article, including decision letters and anonymized or signed reviews, to enhance transparency.
6. Appeals and Ethics Concerns: Authors may appeal decisions through a formal process. Ethical concerns are addressed promptly, with potential actions including re-review, corrections, or retractions.
Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewers are expected to:
- Provide unbiased, timely, and constructive feedback.
- Declare competing interests and decline reviews if conflicts exist.
- Focus on technical and ethical rigor, not perceived novelty.
- Adhere to the journal’s code of conduct and ethical peer review policies.
Special Considerations
- Registered Reports and Protocols: These undergo the same rigorous peer review but may receive expedited review by one internal and one external reviewer. Reviewers assess adherence to the protocol and the validity of any deviations.
- Replication Studies: The journal invites signed reviews from authors of the original study for manuscripts involving replication or re-analysis to ensure fairness.
- Interdisciplinary Focus: Reviewers are selected to cover the diverse disciplines represented in the manuscript, ensuring comprehensive evaluation.
Transparency and Metrics
The journal transparently reports peer review timings, which vary by discipline and manuscript complexity. Article-level metrics (e.g., views, downloads, citations) are provided to track impact.
Addressing Bias and Misconduct
To mitigate bias, the journal:
- Monitors editor and reviewer activity to prevent conflicts of interest or anomalous behavior.
- Takes swift action against unprofessional conduct, such as sexist or inappropriate reviewer comments, by removing reviewers and editors and re-reviewing affected manuscripts.
- Encourages open peer review to increase accountability, while acknowledging concerns about reviewer retaliation, particularly for junior researchers.