Peer review policy

Model

We operate double-anonymous peer review: authors do not know who reviewed their paper, and reviewers are not told who wrote it. We chose this model because the evidence suggests it reduces the influence of seniority, gender and institutional prestige on review outcomes.

Process

Each in-scope submission goes to at least two independent reviewers. Where reviewers disagree substantially, the handling editor may seek a third opinion or make a judgement on the record, explaining their reasoning to the author.

Timelines

• Desk screening: 2–7 days
• Reviewer response to an invitation: 5 days
• Completed review: 28 days from acceptance of the invitation
• Median time to first decision: 31 days

What we ask reviewers for

A recommendation, structured scores on originality, significance, methodology, clarity and references, and substantive comments to the author. We ask reviewers to be specific: point to sections, quote passages, and number your points so that the author can respond to each.

Reviewer recognition

Reviewers may claim credit through their ORCID record. We publish an annual list of reviewers, with permission, and completed reviews appear in the reviewer's own dashboard.