The Collection employs a double-blind peer review procedure: the reviewers do not know the identity of the author, and the author does not know the identity of the reviewers.

Review procedure:

A submitted manuscript is examined by the Editor-in-Chief for compliance with the Collection’s thematic scope, the overall scholarly quality of the idea and the topic as developed, the quality of the methodology employed, and adherence to formatting requirements. Only after this initial assessment may the manuscript be forwarded for peer review. At this preliminary stage, the manuscript may be desk-rejected without being sent for review.

A manuscript that passes the preliminary screening undergoes plagiarism checking (see Plagiarism Screening Policy) and is then sent for review to two experts — members of the editorial board or invited external specialists whose expertise is closest to the topic of the submission.

The review addresses the following questions:

• novelty of the topic and originality of the research findings
• correspondence between the content of the article and the topic stated in the title
• soundness of the research problem formulation and depth of its development
• appropriateness of the chosen methodology and research methods to the stated objectives
• quality of illustrative material
• sufficiency and reliability of data
• validity of conclusions and their practical significance
• quality and relevance of bibliographic sources

The reviewer provides one of the following recommendations:

1. Accept for publication without changes.
2. Accept for publication after minor revisions.
3. Accept for publication after major revisions (re-review required).
4.  

Timelines:

The minimum review period is one month; the maximum is two months. Where the review contains recommendations for revision, the manuscript is returned to the author with a request to address the comments; the author is given 14 days to submit a revised version. The revised manuscript is sent for re-review to the same reviewer.

Should the author disagree with a reviewer’s opinion, they have the right to submit a reasoned response to the editorial office. The manuscript may be sent for additional review or referred to the editorial board for consideration.

The editorial office reserves the right to reject manuscripts where the author is unable or unwilling to address the reviewers’ recommendations. Where two different reviewers provide negative reviews, or where one negative review is received on a revised version, the manuscript is rejected.

Once the editorial board has approved a manuscript for publication, the author is notified of the publication timeline.

Only one article per author (including co-authored works) may be published in a single issue of the Collection.

Original copies of reviews are retained by the editorial office for three years.

Reviewers’ obligations:

Reviewers are required to: notify the editorial office of any conflicts of interest; maintain the confidentiality of information relating to the manuscript; and be objective and constructive in their assessments. Unpublished material from manuscripts submitted for review may not be used by reviewers in their own research without the written consent of the authors.

See also: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers