Editorial Policies

These Editorial Policies outline the procedures and standards that guide the management, review, and publication of content within the journal. They explain how submissions are evaluated, reviewed, and managed, and set expectations for authors, reviewers, and editors about transparency, reproducibility, and ethical conduct.

Peer Review Process

All submissions are initially evaluated by an Editor to determine whether they meet the journal’s scope and basic quality requirements for peer review. Manuscripts deemed suitable are sent to at least two subject experts, who assess the clarity, validity, and methodological soundness of the work. When appropriate external reviewers cannot be secured, members of the Editorial Board may be invited to provide reviews.

If it proves difficult to obtain external peer reviewers, a member of the journal’s editorial board or editorial team may serve as an alternative reviewer. In such cases, that individual is excluded from all editorial decisions on the submission to ensure impartiality. If the handling editor contributes feedback directly, this is done transparently and not under the guise of an anonymous review.

Authors may be invited to suggest potential reviewers or request the exclusion of specific individuals from the peer review process. While the journal will consider these requests, it cannot guarantee compliance. All reviewers must be independent of the submission and are required to declare any competing interests.

The journal operates a single-blind peer review process: reviewers are aware of the authors’ names and affiliations, but reviewer identities remain anonymous to authors. The review process typically takes six to eight weeks, though timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability. Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive and formative feedback, even when a submission is not recommended for publication.

Following the completion of peer review, the handling editor will make a recommendation of rejection, major revisions and re-review, minor revisions, or acceptance. Final editorial responsibility rests with the Editor-in-Chief, supported by an international Editorial Board.

Members of the Editorial Board or editorial team may submit their own work to the journal. In such cases, the individual concerned will be excluded from all editorial duties related to their submission. Responsibility for managing the peer review process will be assigned to another qualified editor. Any such submissions must include a clear competing interest statement, which will also be disclosed in any resulting publication.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are asked to provide feedback on the following aspects of a submission:

Content:
Does the article fit within the scope of the journal? Is the submission original, relevant, and rigorous? Does the author demonstrate an adequate understanding of the issues explored? Are sources and references sufficient, and has the existing body of knowledge been appropriately built upon? Are the chosen methodologies suitable and effectively applied? Do the conclusions align with the arguments presented and contribute new insights to the field?

Structure and Argument:
Does the abstract accurately and concisely summarise the main arguments? Is the manuscript logically organised, with a coherent flow of ideas? Is the methodology clearly referenced in the introduction, and are all arguments adequately supported by evidence? Does the introduction signpost the article effectively, and does the conclusion provide a clear summary of the key points?

Figures and Tables:
Do tables, charts, figures, or maps effectively illustrate and support the arguments presented? Is the quality and presentation of these elements sufficient?

Formatting:
Does the submission comply with the journal’s author guidelines? Are citations and references correctly formatted according to the house style?

Language:
Is the manuscript clearly written and free from unnecessary jargon? Please comment on the quality of English and note any areas that require grammatical improvement.

Data Availability:
Has any data used in the study been sufficiently described and made accessible? Is the data presented in a usable format? Does the submission include a Data Availability Statement explaining how readers can access the data?

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI):
The use of open AI models (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) is prohibited during the peer review process, due to concerns about sharing data that is not publicly available. Local or self-hosted models that do not transmit data externally may be used to assist in organising thoughts or drafting comments; however, the reviewer remains fully responsible and accountable for the feedback and recommendations submitted. Reviewers must not rely on AI to form their academic judgement or final recommendation.

COPE

The journal is a registered member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is committed to following COPE guidelines.

Preprints and Prior Publication

The journal accepts submissions that have previously been made available as preprints, shared on personal or institutional websites, or presented at conferences and other informal communication channels. These forms of dissemination are not considered prior publication.

Papers that have appeared in formal conference proceedings may also be submitted, provided that the new version includes substantial additional data, analysis, or discussion beyond the original conference paper. If the paper was presented but not formally published, a higher degree of overlap is acceptable.

Once accepted, the final manuscript may also be deposited on an open platform under a CC BY licence.

The journal permits authors to deposit draft versions of their manuscripts in a recognised preprint server, provided that the following conditions are met:

  • Copyright: The author retains copyright over the preprint and any subsequent versions derived from it, and may submit the work to the journal for consideration.

  • Declaration: The existence of a preprint must be disclosed in the submission’s cover letter, including a direct link to where the preprint is hosted.

  • Anonymity: Authors acknowledge that the public availability of a preprint may compromise anonymity during the peer review process, even if files are anonymised.

  • Updating Records: Upon publication, authors are expected to update the preprint record to indicate that the final version has been published in the journal, including a DOI link to the official publication.

AI Policy

To read our full policy on the use of generative AI, please click here.

Authorship

All listed authors must meet the criteria for authorship as defined in the journal’s authorship guidelines, which are based on the ICMJE recommendations. Each author must have contributed significantly to the work and given explicit consent to be listed on the submitted manuscript.

ORCID

The journal strongly recommends that all authors register for an Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID). ORCID provides a unique and persistent digital identifier that ensures accurate attribution of research outputs and improves the visibility of an author’s work. Because the ORCID identifier remains constant throughout a researcher’s career, it supports continuity and discoverability even when names, affiliations, or research areas change.

Corresponding authors are encouraged to include their ORCID when submitting their manuscript, and co-authors are also invited to provide one. ORCID identifiers should be added to the author information during submission and will be published alongside the article upon acceptance.

Reproducibility

Open Data

The journal strongly encourages authors to make all data associated with their submissions openly available in accordance with the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). Data should be cited and referenced within the manuscript and linked to a Data Accessibility Statement, describing how the data underlying the findings can be accessed and reused.

If data cannot be made openly available (for example, due to legal, ethical, or privacy constraints), authors must include a statement explaining the reason. Data obtained from third-party sources must be properly credited. All datasets should be curated in a clear and usable format, with sensible column headers and explanatory notes (for instance, in a README file), to support transparency and reuse.

Structured Methods

Because traditional Materials and Methods sections may not always provide sufficient detail for full reproducibility, the journal encourages authors to publish comprehensive descriptions of structured methods on open, community-based platforms such as protocols.io. Providing step-by-step documentation increases reproducibility, enhances research transparency, and allows authors to receive additional credit and citations for their methodological contributions.

Open Code

For research involving software, statistical analysis, or algorithms, authors are encouraged to upload their code to Code Ocean or a similar open, cloud-based repository. These platforms facilitate computational reproducibility, allowing others to validate, reuse, and build upon the published work.

Competing Interests, Funding and Ethics

All participants in the publication process, authors, reviewers, and editors, must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could be perceived as influencing the research or its evaluation.
Conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

  • Financial relationships (e.g. funding, employment, consultancies, stock ownership);

  • Personal or professional relationships with other researchers, institutions, or organisations involved in the work;

  • Intellectual or ideological commitments that could bias interpretation.

Authors must provide a Competing Interests Statement at the time of submission, declaring any relevant financial or non-financial relationships. If none exist, this should be clearly stated (“The authors declare no competing interests”).

Editors and reviewers are also required to recuse themselves from handling or reviewing any manuscript where conflicts may compromise impartiality.

 

Funding Disclosure

Transparency regarding research support is essential. Authors must clearly identify all sources of financial and institutional support, including research grants, fellowships, equipment donations, or sponsorships.
This information must appear in a dedicated Funding Statement within the manuscript. Funding bodies or sponsors must not influence the study design, data collection, analysis, or publication decisions.

Ethical Approval

Research involving human participants, animals, or sensitive data must comply with recognised ethical standards and relevant legislation.
Authors must:

  • Obtain approval from an institutional or national ethics committee prior to conducting the research;

  • Include a statement in the manuscript specifying the approving authority and reference number, where applicable; and

  • Confirm that informed consent was obtained from all participants when human subjects are involved.

For animal research, authors must state compliance with recognised standards such as the ARRIVE guidelines and provide assurance of humane treatment in accordance with institutional or international laws.

The journal reserves the right to request supporting documentation or reject manuscripts that fail to meet ethical standards.

Plagiarism and Data Integrity

The journal upholds strict standards for originality and research integrity. All manuscripts submitted are screened using plagiarism detection software to identify potential overlap with published works. The editorial team evaluates each similarity report carefully, distinguishing between acceptable overlap (e.g. methods, citations, or preprints) and unethical copying.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism, whether of text, ideas, images, or data, is a serious breach of publication ethics. This includes:

  • Direct copying of another’s work without attribution;

  • Paraphrasing substantial portions of text without acknowledgment;

  • Reuse of figures, tables, or data without permission or citation;

  • Submitting the same or substantially similar manuscript to multiple journals (duplicate submission).

If plagiarism is suspected, the editorial team will contact the authors for clarification. Proven cases may result in immediate rejection, manuscript withdrawal, or, if already published, retraction, along with notification to the author’s institution or other relevant authorities.

Data Integrity

Authors are expected to maintain high standards of data accuracy, transparency, and reproducibility. Fabrication, falsification, or selective reporting of data is strictly prohibited.
Authors should retain raw data and documentation for verification and be prepared to provide access upon request. Manipulation of images, figures, or results in a way that misrepresents findings is regarded as misconduct.

The journal may conduct additional checks, including data audits or image analysis, to verify research integrity prior to publication.

Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

The journal is committed to maintaining an accurate and transparent scholarly record. When errors or concerns are identified in published content, appropriate action will be taken to ensure the integrity of the literature.

Corrections

Minor errors that do not affect the overall findings, interpretations, or conclusions of a paper may be corrected through the publication of an erratum (for publisher errors) or corrigendum (for author errors).
Corrections are linked directly to the original article and clearly indicate the nature of the change.

Retractions

A retraction will be issued when a published work is found to contain major errors, research misconduct, plagiarism, data fabrication, unethical research, or any issues that invalidate its findings.
Retraction notices clearly state the reasons for retraction, are freely accessible, and remain linked to the original article to maintain the transparency of the academic record.
Retracted articles remain in the public domain with a clear watermark or notice indicating their retracted status.

Expressions of Concern

When credible concerns are raised but an investigation is still ongoing, or when evidence is inconclusive, the journal may issue an Expression of Concern.
This serves to alert readers to potential issues while allowing time for due process and fair investigation.

Post-Publication Updates

In rare cases where additional information or clarifications are required after publication, the journal may issue updates, addenda, or editorial notes to ensure readers have the most accurate context.

All corrections and updates follow COPE guidelines and are published as soon as the issue has been verified and resolved.

Appeals, Complaints and Misconduct

The journal treats all appeals, complaints, and allegations of misconduct with seriousness, fairness, and confidentiality. These procedures are designed to protect the integrity of the publication process and to ensure that all parties are treated equitably.

Appeals

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision must submit a formal written request within 30 days of receiving the decision. The appeal should clearly state the grounds for reconsideration and include any supporting evidence.
Appeals will be reviewed by a senior editor or, where appropriate, an independent editorial advisor not previously involved in the original decision.
The outcome of the appeal is final, and the decision will be communicated transparently to the author.

Complaints

Complaints may concern delays, unprofessional conduct, potential bias, or other aspects of the editorial or peer review process.
All complaints must be submitted in writing to the journal’s editorial office. Each complaint will be acknowledged promptly and investigated confidentially.
Both authors and reviewers will be given the opportunity to present their perspectives before a final decision is made.
If a complaint involves an editor, it will be escalated to the Editor-in-Chief or Publisher for independent review.

Misconduct

The journal follows a zero-tolerance policy toward all forms of academic misconduct, including (but not limited to) plagiarism, falsification, fabrication of data, manipulation of images, duplicate publication, or undeclared conflicts of interest.
When suspected misconduct arises, the editorial board will initiate an investigation in accordance with COPE procedures.
Confirmed cases may result in rejection of the manuscript, retraction of a published article, blacklisting of the authors, notification of affiliated institutions, and, in severe cases, legal action.
Authors will always be given an opportunity to respond to allegations before a final decision is reached.

Ethical Oversight

The journal maintains oversight for ethical compliance throughout the submission, review, and publication stages.
Research involving humans or animals must comply with recognised ethical standards and include documentation of ethics approval when applicable.
All submissions are screened for plagiarism and data integrity, and corrective actions (including retractions or expressions of concern) are handled in line with COPE recommendations.

Expected behaviour

The journal upholds a professional, respectful, and inclusive environment across all editorial and publication activities. All participants, including authors, reviewers, editors, and staff, are expected to act with integrity, courtesy, and professionalism at all times.

Respectful Conduct

Communication with journal staff, editors, reviewers, and other contributors must remain courteous and professional.
Constructive dialogue is encouraged, but harassment, intimidation, or disrespectful correspondence will not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Zero-Tolerance Policy

Any individual, whether author, reviewer, or editor, who engages in abusive, threatening, discriminatory, or defamatory behaviour toward others involved in the publication process will have their submission or review assignment immediately withdrawn.
Future participation in journal activities, including submission or editorial involvement, will be at the sole discretion of the Editor-in-Chief and/or Publisher.

Accountability

The journal reserves the right to take appropriate action when breaches of expected behaviour occur. This may include formal warnings, removal from editorial duties, or restriction from submitting to or reviewing for the journal in the future.
All reports of misconduct or unprofessional behaviour will be handled with discretion and fairness.