Peer Review Policy

Review model

Research articles, literature reviews, applied research papers, and conceptual or theoretical papers will undergo double-anonymous review. Authors and reviewers are not intentionally told one another's identities during review. Anonymity cannot be guaranteed, especially where a preprint or distinctive project is already public. Editorials, announcements, and other editorially reviewed items will be labeled and will not be presented as externally peer reviewed.

Screening and reviewer selection

Editors first consider scope, originality, completeness, ethical disclosures, and suitability for review. A manuscript may be declined at screening with an explanation. Suitable manuscripts are sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers must disclose competing interests; author suggestions are optional and do not determine selection. The journal verifies reviewer suitability and does not use author-controlled accounts as independent reviewers.

Review criteria and decisions

Reviewers consider the research question, engagement with prior work, appropriateness of methods or argument, evidence, interpretation, limitations, ethics, and clarity. Qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, theoretical, and practice-based work are assessed according to their approach. Feedback should help authors understand concerns and avoid personal or discriminatory remarks.

The handling editor makes the decision after assessing the manuscript and reports. Decisions may be accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Reviewers advise; they do not decide by vote. Where reports materially conflict, the editor may obtain another review or specialist advice. Revised submissions must include responses to comments and may undergo further review. Acceptance is not guaranteed by an invitation to revise.

Confidentiality and independence

Reviewers may not share submissions, recruit a co-reviewer without permission, contact authors about the review, or use unpublished ideas or data. They must not upload manuscript content or review material to generative AI services. Editors remain responsible for human oversight. Conflicted editors recuse themselves; founder and board submissions receive independent handling under the Conflict of Interest Policy.

Timing and author support

We aim to acknowledge complete submissions within five business days and communicate screening outcomes within fifteen business days. External review depends on reviewer availability and may take longer; authors will receive reasonable progress updates. Inaugural scheduling is a planning target, not guaranteed acceptance or publication by a fixed date. Workshops and mentoring are optional, separate from decisions, and do not substitute for independent review. Authors may appeal under the Complaints and Appeals Policy.