All manuscripts submitted to the Journal undergo double-blind peer review. Items published in the front section of the Journal, such as the Editorial section, are exempt from peer review.

  1. Manuscripts are submitted online and undergo an initial assessment by the Editorial Office to ensure compliance with author guidelines. The Editor-in-Chief is then assigned to determine whether the manuscripts fall within the Journal's scope.
  2. Manuscripts deemed potentially suitable undergo a similarity and AI detection process. If a similarity and/or AI detection report indicates a significant percentage, the Editor-in-Chief examines the report and manuscript to assess the extent. The Journal's plagiarism policy and AI policy are invoked in cases of suspected plagiarism and generative artificial intelligence.
  3. If a manuscript is suitable for review, the Editor-in-Chief invites editorial advisory committee members or editorial board members to act as reviewers, appointing them upon acknowledgment.
  4. Referees are preferably scholars in the specific expert area of the article, who have not previously co-published with the author(s) or worked in the same institution. Referees should also, as far as possible, only be utilised once in a semester.
  5. Instructions and complete guidelines for reviewers are sent together with the authors' manuscript to them. Refer to the Referee Report Template provided to reviewers with each manuscript review request.
  6. Appointed referees must directly indicate any potential conflict of interest to the Editor-in-Chief.
  7. Reviewers are requested to make comments directly using track changes on the manuscript and, based on this, to complete a referee report using the template provided to them.
  8. Reviewers are given one month to submit reports, and at least two reports are required for a decision. The double-anonymous review process conceals both authors' and reviewers' identities.
  9. After receiving at least two review reports, the Editor-in-Chief makes a decision on the manuscript. In cases of divergent recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief may arbitrate or refer the manuscript to a third reviewer.
  10. To maintain peer review independence, the Journal typically refrains from altering the content of a peer review report before sharing it with authors. However, editorial staff may edit reports to address offensive language, deviations from Journal style, or protect anonymity without changing the review's meaning or intention.
  11. In exceptional circumstances, review reports not meeting the Journal's requirements regarding content or tone may, at the Editor-in-Chief's discretion, not be shared with authors.
  12. Referees have five options to recommend regarding the articles they review: (i) accept as is; (ii) accept with minor revisions; (iii) revise and resubmit; (iv) reject; or (v) refer to a more appropriate journal. Review reports are collated by the Editor-in-Chief for feedback to authors.
  13. Authors have one month to revise a manuscript, and revised manuscripts must be submitted online. Unsubmitted revisions within the specified timeframe will not be considered unless authors request a reasonable extension, which must be granted by the Editor-in-Chief.
  14. Authors may appeal a decision in writing to the Editor-in-Chief, who will respond within three weeks, consulting with the Chair of the editorial board. Their decision will be final.
  15. Accepted manuscripts enter the production queue for copy-editing, layout, and proofing in date order of acceptance. However, the Editor-in-Chief may, for compelling reasons, assign manuscripts to a particular issue at their discretion.
  16. All review reports and substantive correspondence are to be retained within the Journal’s record system for possible later scrutiny.