This page describes what happens to a manuscript submitted to Peer Academics, who does it, and the periods the journal works to at each stage. Review is double-anonymous: you are not told who reviewed your work, and reviewers are not told who wrote it. Reviewers advise; an editor decides. Nothing is charged at any stage, and no payment can obtain, accelerate, or influence a decision.
The review model
- Every research article is assessed by at least two independent reviewers before a first decision. An editor holding fewer than two usable reports seeks another reviewer rather than deciding to accept.
- Reviewers are chosen by the handling editor, are independent of the authors and of each other, and are never identified to the authors as the reviewers of their manuscript, before or after publication. The journal does not publish review reports.
- Any material published without external review is labeled on the article itself as not peer reviewed.
- Until the Editorial Board is complete, manuscripts are handled by the acting editorial management appointed by the Publisher, under these same rules and the same minimum number of reviewers.
Stage 1 — Editorial screening
An editor screens every submission, normally within two weeks, checking that the manuscript:
- falls within the journal's scope and fits a published article type and its length range;
- is complete — anonymous manuscript, separate title page, figures, and the full Declarations section;
- is properly anonymized, as required by the Author Guidelines;
- is written in English a reviewer can assess without reconstructing the argument;
- carries the ethics, consent, funding, conflict of interest, generative AI, and data availability declarations;
- passes similarity screening and discloses any preprint, prior version, or concurrent submission.
Screening has three outcomes. An incomplete or unanonymized manuscript is returned to you for correction without review and keeps no priority when resubmitted. A manuscript that is out of scope, or clearly below the standard the journal requires, is declined without external review. Everything else goes to review. A desk decline is taken by an editor, never by a reviewer, and is explained in substance.
Stage 2 — Reviewer invitation
The handling editor invites reviewers with expertise close to the manuscript and no conflict of interest, as defined in Conflicts of Interest; reviewers at the authors' institution, recent co-authors, and current or former supervisors or supervisees are not used. You may name preferred or non-preferred reviewers in the comments to the editor, with your reason; the editor is not bound by either list and does not build a panel from names you supply. Invitations are answered within five working days, and reviewers who accept undertake to report within four weeks.
Stage 3 — Review
Reviewers receive the anonymized manuscript and the supplementary files supplied for review, but not the title page, so they see no names, affiliations, funding, or ethics reference numbers. They report on a structured form covering contribution, framing, method, evidence, presentation, and compliance, with confidential comments to the editor kept separate, and they declare that they hold no undeclared conflict, have kept the manuscript confidential, and have entered neither the manuscript nor their report into a generative artificial intelligence service. A submission is a confidential document: it may not be shared, quoted, cited, or used before publication, and copies are destroyed after the decision. See the Reviewer Guidelines and the Generative AI Policy.
Stage 4 — The decision
The handling editor weighs the reports against the manuscript itself and decides: accept; minor revisions; major revisions; resubmit for review, where the work may have a future but not in its present form; or decline. A recommendation is advice, not a vote — an editor may decline a manuscript both reviewers praised, or send for revision one they both criticized, and must give reasons. Where reports conflict on a point that determines the outcome, the editor seeks a further review instead of choosing between them. Cases involving a conflict of interest, an allegation of misconduct, or a question the handling editor will not settle alone go to the Editor-in-Chief. The decision letter gives the decision, the reasons, and the anonymized reports.
Revision and re-review
Return a revised manuscript with a point-by-point response to every comment, saying what you changed and where, or why you decline to change it; a revision without one is returned unread. Normally you have four weeks for minor revisions and eight weeks for major revisions, and you ask for an extension before the deadline rather than after it. Revisions go back to the original reviewers wherever they are available, normally for a two-week second round; minor revisions may be checked by the editor alone. An invitation to revise is never a promise of acceptance.
The periods the journal works to
| Stage | Target period |
|---|---|
| Editorial screening | Two weeks from submission |
| Reviewer accepts or declines an invitation | Five working days |
| First review round | Four weeks from the reviewer accepting |
| First decision | Ten weeks from submission |
| Second round on a revised manuscript | Two weeks |
These are the periods the journal sets itself to work to. They are not guarantees, and they are not averages measured from past performance. You are told if your manuscript will take materially longer. Status questions go to [email protected].
The limits of anonymity
Double-anonymous review reduces the influence of a name, an institution, or a country on the judgment of a manuscript. It does not make identification impossible, and the journal does not pretend otherwise. You may still be recognizable where the work is already a public preprint, where a small specialism makes the author obvious from the topic, dataset, or field site, or where the argument plainly continues your own earlier work. Anonymizing the file is your responsibility; the journal checks it but cannot remove what only you can see. A reviewer who recognizes the authors must tell the editor and say whether they can still judge the work impartially, and the editor decides whether to keep or replace them.
Appeals
You may appeal once against a decision, in writing to [email protected], normally within four weeks of the decision letter. State specifically what you believe was misunderstood or wrongly assessed, and give your evidence; disagreement alone is not a ground. The Editor-in-Chief, or an editor uninvolved in the original decision, considers the appeal, may consult a new reviewer, and either reopens the manuscript or confirms the decision, which is then final. Appeals take no priority over new submissions. Complaints about the conduct of the process, as distinct from the decision, are handled under Publication Ethics.