Editorial Policies

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 Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive and formative feedback, even when a submission is not recommended for publication.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.

See our full "use of generative AI policy" for further guidance.

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 (see Peer Review Policy).

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

The journal follows the Caravel Press's use of generative AI policy regarding use of AI at any stage of the publishing process.

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 from 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.

For further guidance on incorporating open data, structured methods, or code-sharing platforms such as protocols.io and Code Ocean into your submission, please refer to the journal’s Reproducibility Policy page.

Competing Interests, Funding and Ethics

To ensure transparency and uphold research integrity, all authors, reviewers, and editors must declare any interests that could compromise, conflict with, or influence the objectivity or validity of a publication. Please refer to the journal’s Competing Interests Policy for further details.

Authors are also required to disclose all funding sources and to confirm compliance with relevant ethical research standards. Ethical approval and consent statements must be included within the manuscript where applicable (see Author Guidelines).

During submission, all authors must confirm that they meet the journal’s Authorship Criteria as defined in the Authorship Guidelines.

Plagiarism

The journal considers plagiarism, including the use of others’ work without proper attribution or permission, a serious breach of academic integrity. All submissions are screened using a similarity check to identify any content that may closely match previously published material.

If a high similarity score is detected or an allegation of plagiarism or misconduct is made, the journal will conduct an independent investigation in line with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. Where appropriate, remedial or corrective action will be taken in accordance with the journal’s Appeals, Complaints, and Misconduct Policy.

Corrections and Retractions

In accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, the Press manages different types of publication error with transparency and care. All articles undergo proof review by the author or editor prior to publication to minimise the risk of content errors.

Readers who identify a potential error in a published article are encouraged to contact the journal directly. Post-publication changes are not generally permitted except under exceptional circumstances. Where a significant error or issue is identified, the publisher will determine whether a Correction notice or Retraction is required, following COPE guidance.

For further details, please refer to the journal’s Correction Policy.

Appeals, Complaints and Misconduct

Appeals, complaints, and allegations of misconduct are treated with the utmost seriousness, whether raised by individuals internal or external to the journal, and whether the submission is pre- or post-publication. All allegations reported to the journal will also be referred to the publisher, who will act in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines when determining the appropriate course of action.

Individuals wishing to submit an appeal, lodge a complaint, or raise a concern about potential misconduct should first review the journal’s Appeals, Complaints, and Misconduct Policy, then contact the Editor-in-Chief and/or the Publisher directly to outline their concerns.

Expected behaviour

The journal maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward abusive, threatening, or disrespectful behaviour or correspondence directed at its staff, editors, authors, or reviewers. Any individual engaging in such conduct will have their submission or involvement with the journal immediately withdrawn. Future participation in journal activities will be at the sole discretion of the Editor and/or Publisher.