Last updated: 11 August 2026
How Review Works
Each manuscript submitted for review undergoes a thorough evaluation by two independent experts in the relevant field. Throughout this process, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential to ensure an unbiased assessment.
In cases where the evaluations from the two reviewers conflict significantly, a third reviewer may be appointed to provide additional insights and help reach a consensus on the manuscript’s overall quality and suitability for publication.
Assessment Criteria
Peer reviewers are guided by the journal’s peer review evaluation form and assess:
- The rigour of the research methodology
- The clarity and coherence of the writing
- The manuscript’s contribution to interdisciplinary scholarship
- Adherence to APA (American Psychological Association) formatting and citation guidelines
The Four Recommendations
| Recommendation | What it means |
|---|---|
| Accept (no revisions) | The manuscript is ready for publication as submitted. Reviewers find the study original, methodologically sound, well written, and compliant with ethical and formatting standards. No further changes are required beyond minor editorial adjustments such as copyediting and layout. |
| Minor revisions | Fundamentally strong but requiring small adjustments — clarifying points, correcting formatting or citations, refining language, or adding minor detail to strengthen arguments. Authors revise quickly and the manuscript usually does not need another full round of review. |
| Major revisions | Shows potential but requires substantial change: restructuring sections, clarifying methodology, expanding data analysis, strengthening theoretical grounding, or addressing significant gaps in the literature. Authors must provide a detailed response letter explaining how each comment was addressed, and the manuscript is typically returned to reviewers for verification. |
| Reject | Does not meet the journal’s scholarly, ethical, or formatting standards — through lack of originality, weak methodology, poor alignment with scope, or failure to meet ethical requirements. Authors may be encouraged to improve and resubmit as a new submission, but this version proceeds no further. |
Consolidation
Once the peer reviewers have submitted their evaluations, the Editorial Assistant consolidates all feedback into a single Consolidated Peer Review Evaluation Form, summarising the reviewers’ comments, suggestions, and final recommendations.
| Stage | Who | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewed | Editorial Assistant | Organises reviewer reports, formats them into a unified document, and communicates the consolidated feedback to authors |
| Overseen | Managing Editor | Ensures comments are clear and constructive, and prepares the consolidated evaluation form |
| Communicated | Editorial Assistant | Authors receive the consolidated evaluation form and the template again, with specific instructions for revision |
| Tracked | Editorial office | Authors are given one to two weeks to address comments, referring to specific remarks and page numbers |
If authors choose to contest any of a reviewer’s suggestions, they should indicate which parts they did not follow, and why. A reasoned disagreement is part of peer review, not a breach of it.
6. Before Revisions and Final Decision
If revisions are submitted, the revised manuscript and consolidated evaluation form are returned to the reviewers — or, occasionally, solely to the Managing Editor, depending on the magnitude of the revisions. Reviewers verify whether their concerns have been sufficiently addressed.
The Editor-in-Chief renders the final decision, contingent upon the reviewers’ affirmation and the overall standard of the revised manuscript, and issues the official verdict on whether to publish.