Peer review policy

Every research article published in an OAIFR journal is peer reviewed by external experts before acceptance. Editorials, book reviews and correspondence are assessed by the editors and are labelled as such in the published article.

Review model

Our journals use double-anonymous review unless the journal states otherwise on its own site: reviewers are not told who the authors are, and authors are not told who reviewed the work.

[Update: confirm the model in use for each title, and state it here, if any journal in the portfolio uses single-anonymous or open review instead.]

To support the model, authors submit a separate title page and a blinded manuscript with identifying details removed.

The process

• Technical check. The editorial office confirms the submission is complete, correctly formatted and accompanied by the required declarations, and runs similarity screening.
• Desk assessment. An editor assesses scope, originality, ethical compliance and basic methodological soundness. Manuscripts that are out of scope or fundamentally flawed are declined at this point, with reasons.
• Reviewer invitation. The handling editor invites reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the subject. Reviewers who have a conflict of interest are excluded.
• Review. Normally at least two independent reviewers assess each manuscript. Where reviewers disagree substantially, the editor may seek a third.
• Decision. The handling editor decides: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. The decision is the editor’s, informed by the reviews rather than dictated by them.
• Revision. Authors respond point by point. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers.
• Final decision and production.

Choosing reviewers

Reviewers are selected on subject expertise and publication record. We do not use author-suggested reviewers as the sole reviewers, and we verify the identity and affiliation of anyone suggested. Reviewers must not be at the same institution as any author, must not have co-authored with an author recently, and must have no financial or personal interest in the outcome.

Timelines

Indicative timelines are published by each journal. [Update: insert the current figures for time to first decision and time from acceptance to publication for each title. Do not publish a figure you cannot support from the OJS record.]

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts are confidential. Reviewers and editors must not share, quote or use them, and must not upload them to generative AI tools. See [use of AI in research and publishing](/ai-policy).

Manuscripts from editors and board members

A submission from an editor, an editorial board member or a member of the publishing staff is handled by an editor with no connection to the author, who selects the reviewers independently. The author has no access to the review record. The arrangement is stated in the published article.

Appeals

Authors may appeal once, in writing, on specific scientific grounds. The editor-in-chief handles the appeal, consulting an uninvolved editor where necessary. The outcome is final.

Reviewer recognition

Reviewers are not paid. We provide confirmation of review on request and support reviewer recognition services where the journal offers them. Payment in exchange for a favourable review is misconduct and is reported to the reviewer’s institution.