01 · Administrative & scope check
An initial check would assess completeness, article type, journal fit and anonymous-file preparation. A manuscript outside scope or missing essential information may be returned with a reason rather than sent for external review.
02 · Integrity & independent assignment
Editors would examine conflicts, ethics documentation, originality concerns and research integrity. Similarity reports are prompts for contextual assessment, not an automatic percentage-based pass. A non-conflicted editor would be assigned.
03 · External double-anonymous review
At least two appropriate external reviewers would be invited on the basis of subject and methodological expertise. Author and reviewer identities would be withheld from one another as far as practicable. Reviewers must declare conflicts and protect confidential materials; anonymity cannot be absolutely guaranteed.
04 · Reasoned decision & revision
The handling editor would evaluate reports and provide a reasoned decision: reject, revise or accept where justified. Authors would address substantive comments in their own response and explain disagreements with evidence. Further review may be needed; no acceptance or publication-speed guarantee is offered.
05 · Appeals & the published record
A documented appeal route would allow authors to identify procedural errors or substantive grounds for reconsideration. An independent, non-conflicted editor would handle appeals where practicable. Corrections or retractions would follow evidence-based procedures described in the proposed policies.