Peer Review Policy

All research submitted to this journal undergoes double-blind peer review. Author identities are
withheld from reviewers and reviewer identities are never disclosed to authors — not during
review, not after a decision, and not on request.

Every submission is first checked automatically for completeness, formatting, blinding integrity
and textual similarity. A handling editor then decides whether the manuscript merits peer review.
Manuscripts that fall outside our scope, or that are clearly not ready, are returned at this
stage rather than occupying reviewers' time.

Manuscripts sent for review receive at least two independent reports. Reviewers are matched to
manuscripts on subject expertise, and are excluded automatically where a conflict of interest
exists: shared institution with any author, recent co-authorship, or inclusion on the author's
list of opposed reviewers.

No reviewer holds more than two manuscripts at any one time. This is enforced by the submission
system itself, not left to goodwill, because overloaded reviewers produce late and shallow
reports.

The handling editor weighs the reports and decides. Reviewers advise; they do not decide.
Where reviewers disagree, the editor may seek an additional opinion.