What you receive
Two written reviews and a decision letter.
We tell you what is working, what needs work, and what to try next.
Review process
A clear process for every paper.
You submit once. An editor checks fit. Two reviewers read the paper. You receive a written decision and comments. Our target is a decision within six to eight weeks.
What we do not promise
Acceptance or a fixed date.
We do not sell publication. Our six to eight week timeline is a target. A complex paper or a specialist review can take longer.
From draft to decision
01
Fit check
An editor checks that the paper fits our scope, is original work, and is ready for review.
Within 7 days
02
Two written reviews
Two reviewers read the question, evidence, method, and writing. Each reviewer sends written comments.
Weeks 2 to 5
03
Decision letter
An editor considers the reviews and sends a decision letter with comments and next steps. We aim to give useful feedback when we decline a paper.
Target: weeks 6 to 8
04
Revision and publication
Accepted authors answer the comments. We copyedit the final file and publish it only after the author approves the final version.
If accepted
The shared rubric
The questions reviewers answer.
Reviewers score each area from 1 to 5 and explain the score. These six questions stay the same for every paper.
Fluency is not a scoring criterion. Raise language concerns with the editor instead of reflecting them in the clarity score.
Question or thesis
Is the main question clear and focused?
Context and contribution
Does the paper explain what other people have said?
Method or argument
Is the method or argument clear?
Evidence and analysis
Do the sources or data support the conclusion?
Clarity
Can a careful reader follow the paper?
Integrity
Does the paper explain limits, conflicts, consent, and source use?
Possible decisions
Reviewers advise. Editors decide.
Revise and resubmit
The paper needs important changes before we can accept it.
Accept with changes
The paper is sound. It needs focused revisions and copyediting.
Decline
The paper is out of scope or has issues that this review cannot resolve. We aim to include useful comments.