The review process consists of four stages, recorded in the journal’s editorial system.

1. Editorial screening

The editor checks alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, the author guidelines and official template, and the manuscript’s quality and integrity. The editor may request adjustments or reject the submission during screening. The outcome is communicated to the corresponding author; manuscripts meeting the requirements proceed to reviewer selection.

Similarity assessment and potential integrity concerns are handled under the plagiarism and ethics policies. AI/LLM tools must be used in accordance with the journal’s specific policy.

2. Reviewer selection and anonymity

Each manuscript sent for review receives at least two reports from distinct, independent reviewers external to the editorial team and Editorial Board. Reviewers are selected by the editor and registered in OJS. They must hold a PhD or have recognized expertise in the field, have no joint publications with the authors in the previous five years, and have no conflicts of interest. Personal, institutional or professional relationships that may compromise impartiality must be disclosed to the editor under the ethics policy.

Review is double-anonymous: authors’ and reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to one another during the process, but are accessible to the responsible editorial team. Preparation of the anonymous file and provision of author metadata follow the author guidelines. If an identity is recognized or inferred, the reviewer informs the editor so that any conflict can be assessed. Manuscripts, reports and communications are subject to the confidentiality rules in the ethics 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.

3. Review and revisions

Reviewers are asked to submit their reports within two weeks of accepting the invitation and may request a justified extension. This is not the total duration of the editorial process or a promise of a decision or publication. The editor informs authors of significant delays and the deadlines applicable to revisions.

Reports are submitted through the journal’s OJS form, with clear, constructive reasons supporting a recommendation of acceptance, revisions or rejection. When revisions are requested, authors submit a revised manuscript and a response to editorial requests, identifying changes made or explaining points not adopted. The editor assesses the response and may send the manuscript for further review.

4. Editorial decision and special circumstances

The responsible editor decides on the basis of the reasoning in both reports, authors’ responses to editorial requests, relevance to the journal and its policies. The outcome may be acceptance, a request for revisions or rejection. Reports inform the decision; they are not votes and do not guarantee publication, even when favorable. Acceptance is formally communicated to the corresponding author.

When reports diverge, the editor examines their arguments and may request clarification, revisions 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 and its reasons are communicated to authors. Requests for reconsideration follow the ethics policy and are submitted through the editorial contact.

Articles by editors, board members and guest editors follow the same criteria as other submissions. An author holding an editorial role must not select reviewers, handle the process or decide on their own article. Another editor without conflicts of interest assumes these duties. If the journal’s responsible editor must recuse themselves, a non-conflicted board member designates an independent handling editor, who may be external to the journal. The assignment, recusals and decision are recorded in OJS.

Thematic collections require editorial approval and alignment with the journal’s aims and scope. Guest editors’ qualifications are checked and approved. Articles are identified as part of the collection and undergo the same external review by at least two independent reviewers and the same oversight as regular submissions. The journal’s responsible editor retains oversight and final responsibility for the content; invitations do not guarantee acceptance. Articles by guest editors are handled independently and must not exceed 25% of the collection’s total number of articles. Assignments, recusals and decisions are recorded in OJS.

The contribution types accepted by the journal are described in the author guidelines and follow the review process defined here, without exemption for invited contributions.

Editorial policies · Author guidelines · Ethics · Plagiarism · AI/LLM use · Contact

Revised: 17 October 2026.