Peer-review

Last Updated: October 2026

ETFLIN is committed to maintaining a fair, independent, confidential, and rigorous peer-review process. Peer review supports the evaluation of scholarly quality, methodological validity, originality, relevance, and research integrity before publication.

ETFLIN generally operates a double-blind peer-review system, under which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another during the evaluation process. Manuscripts submitted for external peer review are assessed by at least two independent reviewers who are not members of the journal's editorial board. An editor from the editorial board is responsible for evaluating the reports and making the editorial decision.

The peer-review process is governed by the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, constructive criticism, appropriate expertise, and editorial independence. The procedures described below are informed by recognized publication ethics guidance, including the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the ICMJE Recommendations on Submission and Peer Review.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Every submitted manuscript undergoes an initial administrative and editorial assessment before external peer review is initiated.

The initial assessment examines whether the manuscript falls within the journal's scope, satisfies the applicable submission requirements, contains the required files and declarations, and is sufficiently complete for evaluation. It may also include preliminary checks for plagiarism, inappropriate overlap, reference accuracy, formatting, ethical documentation, and other matters relevant to the submission.

The initial assessment does not replace external peer review. A manuscript may be declined before external review if it is clearly outside the journal's scope, does not meet essential submission requirements, lacks sufficient scholarly suitability, or presents concerns that prevent it from proceeding.

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are forwarded for reviewer selection and external evaluation. Passing this stage does not imply that the manuscript will be accepted or that acceptance is likely.

Double-Blind Peer Review

ETFLIN's standard peer-review model is double-blind: authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers, and reviewers are not intentionally provided with the identities of the authors during the evaluation process.

Before a manuscript is sent to reviewers, the editorial team takes reasonable steps to remove identifying information from the review files and associated metadata. This may include checking document properties, author identifiers, acknowledgments, and other material that could unnecessarily disclose the authors' identities.

Authors are responsible for preparing review files that do not unnecessarily reveal their identities. References to an author's previously published work remain permissible when scientifically appropriate, but manuscripts should not include unnecessary statements or metadata that compromise anonymity.

Double-blind review is intended to reduce potential bias; it cannot guarantee that a reviewer will never infer an author's identity from the subject matter, writing style, citations, or prior dissemination of the work. Reviewers must not deliberately attempt to identify authors or use information obtained during the review process to gain an advantage.

Reviewer identities must remain confidential during the evaluation process. Any permitted disclosure of a reviewer's identity after the process has concluded is subject to the separate reviewer-recognition arrangements described below.

Reviewer Selection and Qualifications

Reviewers are selected according to their relevant subject expertise, methodological competence, research experience, and ability to provide an independent assessment of the manuscript.

ETFLIN generally seeks reviewers with an appropriate academic or professional background and a record of relevant scholarly work. An advanced degree and a strong publication record are useful indicators of expertise, but they are not the only possible qualifications. Editors may invite individuals with recognized specialist knowledge, relevant technical skills, or substantial professional experience when these qualifications are appropriate to the manuscript.

Manuscripts submitted for external peer review are assessed by at least two independent reviewers who are not members of the editorial board. The editor may invite additional reviewers when the manuscript requires expertise not sufficiently covered by the initial reviewers, when assessments conflict materially, or when further evaluation is necessary.

Reviewers must be sufficiently independent of the authors and must not share an institutional affiliation with the authors or with other reviewers assigned to the same manuscript. For this purpose, institutional affiliations must be assessed according to the actual institutional relationships involved, including relevant jointly administered or affiliated institutions.

The editor reserves the authority to decline or replace a proposed reviewer when there are concerns regarding expertise, impartiality, availability, confidentiality, or a potential competing interest.

Any exception to the journal's standard external peer-review procedure must be consistent with the relevant journal's declared publication-type and editorial policies. In accordance with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, any material exception to the usual peer-review model must be communicated clearly rather than implying that all published content underwent an identical review process.

Reviewer Invitations and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewer invitations contain sufficient information for prospective reviewers to determine whether the manuscript falls within their expertise and whether they have the time and independence necessary to assess it.

Reviewers must consider relevant financial, professional, institutional, personal, and intellectual relationships before accepting an assignment. Potential conflicts may include recent collaboration or co-authorship with an author, a current or recent supervisory relationship, close personal relationships, direct academic competition, financial interests in the research outcome, or other circumstances that could reasonably compromise impartiality.

Reviewers must disclose relevant concerns to the responsible editor before accepting the assignment. If a conflict becomes apparent after the review has begun, the reviewer must notify the editor promptly and refrain from further evaluation until the editor determines the appropriate course of action.

A reviewer who cannot provide an independent assessment must decline or withdraw from the assignment. The editor may appoint a replacement reviewer or take other appropriate steps to preserve the independence of the process.

These requirements are consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which emphasize objectivity, confidentiality, disclosure of competing interests, and avoidance of personal or professional bias.

Review Timeline and Extensions

The standard review completion target is 14 business days from the date on which a reviewer accepts the invitation to evaluate the manuscript. The review period begins upon acceptance of the assignment, not upon the original manuscript submission date or the date on which the invitation was first sent.

If a reviewer anticipates difficulty meeting the deadline, the reviewer must notify the editorial office as early as practicable and request an extension through the designated review system or official editorial communication channel.

An extension is subject to editorial approval. The total elapsed period from acceptance of the review assignment must not exceed 30 calendar days under the standard extension arrangement. The 30-day limit represents the maximum total period from acceptance, not an additional 30 days after the original deadline.

Reviewers should not assume that an extension has been approved until the editorial office confirms it. If a reviewer cannot provide the assessment within the permitted period, the editor may withdraw the assignment and invite another reviewer to avoid unnecessary delays.

The editor may also seek an additional reviewer when necessary, even if the original reviewers have submitted their reports, when further assessment is needed to reach a sound decision.

The review timeline is an operational target and not a guarantee that the manuscript will receive a final decision within a particular period. The overall processing time also depends on reviewer availability, additional review where required, editorial assessment, author revisions, and other necessary procedures.

Consistent with the DOAJ Principles of Transparency and Best Practice, material delays should be communicated appropriately, and authors should not be misled by a review target presented as a guaranteed publication schedule.

Review Workflow and Editorial Assessment

Following acceptance of the reviewer assignment, reviewers evaluate the manuscript and submit their assessments through the designated review system.

A complete review normally includes a qualitative assessment, any applicable quantitative scores, and a clear recommendation to the editor. Reviewers should distinguish major scientific or methodological concerns from minor presentational issues and provide enough explanation for the authors to understand the basis of their assessment.

The review workflow consists of the following stages:

Preparation. The editorial team checks the submission files, prepares the review version, and performs the necessary administrative and anonymization checks.

Reviewer invitation. The editor selects prospective reviewers based on expertise, independence, and availability. Reviewers may accept, decline, or request clarification before accepting an assignment.

External assessment. Reviewers examine the manuscript within the agreed period and submit their comments, scores, and recommendation. Confidential comments intended only for the editor must be entered in the appropriate confidential section rather than mixed with comments intended for the authors.

Editorial evaluation. After receiving the required reports, the responsible editor evaluates their substance, considers any conflicting assessments, and determines the appropriate next step. The editor ordinarily aims to assess the reports within one to seven days, where practicable, although complex cases may require additional time.

Revision and further review. If revision is requested, the authors must provide a revised manuscript and a reasoned response to the comments. Depending on the nature of the requested changes, the editor may return the revision to the original reviewers, invite additional reviewers, or evaluate the revision directly.

Final decision. The responsible editor determines whether the manuscript should be accepted, rejected, or returned for further revision. The decision is based on the overall scientific and editorial assessment rather than the number of favorable recommendations alone.

The editor may request additional information or seek further expert advice whenever necessary to assess a manuscript properly.

Review Criteria and Scoring

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript's scholarly quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, accuracy, and contribution to the field. The review should be appropriate to the publication type and the research design.

The standard assessment may consider the following dimensions:

• Language and presentation: Clarity, organization, terminology, readability, and appropriate scholarly communication.

• Research background and rationale: Adequacy of the literature review, relevance of the research question, clarity of the objectives, and justification of the study.

• Originality and contribution: Novelty, scientific or practical significance, relevance to the journal's scope, and the value added to existing knowledge.

• Methodology: Appropriateness and transparency of the design, materials, procedures, analytical methods, controls, and statistical approach.

• Results and interpretation: Accuracy of reporting, logical consistency, adequacy of the analysis, appropriate interpretation, and recognition of relevant uncertainty.

• Conclusions and limitations: Whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence and whether important limitations are adequately acknowledged.

• References: Relevance, accuracy, appropriate attribution, and sufficient coverage of the literature.

• Research ethics and integrity: Compliance with applicable ethical requirements, transparency of methods and data, and the absence of evident concerns requiring editorial attention.

The journal uses a standardized scoring scale from 1 to 5 when scores are requested. Unless a journal specifies a more detailed rubric, the general interpretation is as follows:

Scores support the qualitative review but do not replace reasoned comments. Reviewers should explain low scores and identify practical ways to address the relevant concerns.

The reviewer should provide specific feedback on the manuscript's strengths, weaknesses, methodological reliability, interpretation, and necessary improvements. Requests for additional experiments, analyses, or revisions must be scientifically justified and proportionate to the manuscript's objectives.

Reviewers should recommend citations only when those references genuinely improve the manuscript's accuracy, context, or scholarly completeness. Requests primarily intended to increase a reviewer's own citation count or promote unrelated publications are inappropriate.

Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Accept. The manuscript is suitable for publication without further substantive revision, subject to any outstanding editorial or production requirements.

Minor Revision. The manuscript is potentially publishable following limited changes that do not require a substantial reconsideration of the underlying research.

Major Revision. Important issues must be addressed before the manuscript can be reconsidered. The changes may require substantial clarification, reanalysis, additional reporting, or other scientifically justified work.

Reject. The manuscript is unsuitable for publication in its current form because of fundamental limitations, insufficient contribution, methodological concerns, lack of scope suitability, or other material deficiencies.

These recommendations are advisory. The reviewer does not make the final publication decision, and the editor is not required to follow a recommendation solely because it was submitted by a reviewer.

The editor evaluates the substance and evidentiary basis of the reviews, the suitability of the manuscript for the journal, the adequacy of the methods and conclusions, and any relevant ethical concerns. When reviews conflict, the editor may request clarification, additional expert assessment, or another review before deciding.

No reviewer, editor, editorial board member, staff member, publisher representative, or other intermediary can guarantee the acceptance of a manuscript. No favorable recommendation, prior reviewing service, personal relationship, payment, or request for expedited handling creates an entitlement to acceptance.

Acceptance is valid only when the responsible editor has formally issued the decision through the journal's established editorial process. Any representation that acceptance can be guaranteed in advance is inconsistent with ETFLIN's editorial principles.

Revision and Reassessment

When revisions are requested, authors must address the reviewer's substantive comments and provide a point-by-point response explaining how each concern has been addressed. Where a recommendation is not followed, the authors should provide a reasoned explanation.

The editor determines whether a revised manuscript requires another external review. Minor revisions may be assessed by the editor when the changes are limited and the outstanding issues can be evaluated adequately. Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional reviewers when scientific reassessment is necessary.

A reviewer who declines a further review round does not determine the outcome of the revised submission. The editor remains responsible for evaluating whether the authors' responses and revisions adequately address the issues raised.

Further revisions may be requested if material concerns remain unresolved. A prior favorable recommendation does not guarantee acceptance in a subsequent round, and an author’s completion of requested revisions does not automatically establish that the manuscript is ready for publication.

Editorial revisions intended to improve clarity, consistency, or formatting may be made where appropriate, provided that the scientific substance is not altered without proper consideration and that material changes are handled transparently.

Confidentiality of Manuscripts and Review Reports

All submitted manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and information obtained through peer review are confidential.

Reviewers must use manuscript materials solely for the purpose of providing the assigned assessment. They must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or discuss unpublished content with unauthorized individuals or use information obtained through review for personal, commercial, academic, or competitive advantage.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly about the manuscript at any stage of the review process. Questions requiring clarification should be submitted through the editorial system or communicated to the responsible editor.

Reviewers must not retain manuscript files for personal use after completing the assignment. Copies should be deleted or disposed of securely when no longer required for the review, subject to any applicable retention requirements communicated by the journal.

Review reports and confidential editorial correspondence are not published alongside articles under the journal's standard process unless an applicable journal policy explicitly provides otherwise. Any future arrangement involving public review reports or signed reviews must be described transparently and implemented with the necessary permissions.

These safeguards follow the confidentiality principles in the ICMJE Recommendations, which treat manuscripts as privileged communications and restrict the disclosure of reviewer identities and comments.

Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must personally evaluate the scientific quality, methodology, validity, originality, interpretation, and conclusions of the manuscript. AI must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment.

The use of AI to assess scientific merit, formulate substantive criticisms, analyze or interpret the manuscript, generate scores, or produce a recommendation for acceptance, rejection, or revision is prohibited under ETFLIN's Use of Artificial Intelligence Policy.

Reviewers are strongly discouraged from uploading manuscripts or any part of a submitted manuscript to AI systems. This prohibition includes manuscript text, excerpts, abstracts, figures, tables, datasets, supplementary files, response letters, review questionnaires, and other confidential submission materials. Removing the author's name does not eliminate the confidentiality risk.

Limited AI assistance may be permitted solely to improve the grammar, clarity, tone, or readability of a reviewer's own drafted comments. Such use is allowed only through an ETFLIN-approved, secure, non-public environment that provides appropriate protection against unauthorized access, retention, disclosure, or use of submitted content for model training.

A tool must not be assumed to be suitable merely because it is described as private or non-public. The environment must have appropriate confidentiality protections and must be approved for the intended task. If those safeguards cannot be verified, reviewers must not submit review-related content to the tool.

AI may not introduce new scientific criticisms, generate substantive analytical arguments, determine scores, change the meaning of the reviewer's assessment, or formulate the final editorial recommendation. The reviewer must carefully check all suggested language and remains fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and appropriateness of the submitted review.

Where AI has been used for permitted language editing, the reviewer must disclose the tool and purpose of use to the responsible editor in accordance with the journal's instructions. This disclosure is intended to support transparency in the editorial process and does not transfer responsibility to the AI system.

Reviewer Recognition and Public Acknowledgment

ETFLIN recognizes the scholarly service provided by peer reviewers. All individuals who complete an assigned review are included in the Reviewer List of the relevant journal in accordance with that journal's listing arrangements.

The Reviewer List acknowledges reviewing service. It does not identify which manuscript an individual reviewed, disclose the reviewer's recommendation, or reveal confidential review reports. The public list may be updated according to the journal's issue or reporting cycle, and its scope should be understood from the information displayed on the relevant journal page.

Inclusion in the journal's general Reviewer List is separate from any optional display of a reviewer's name alongside a particular article or related published content.

If an article-related reviewer-recognition feature becomes available in a journal's publication template, a reviewer's name may be displayed in the relevant content only after the reviewer has provided explicit and informed consent. Participation must be voluntary and must not affect reviewer selection, editorial decisions, or future invitations.

At present, ETFLIN's journal templates do not implement this article-related reviewer-name display feature. Accordingly, reviewer names should not be presented as though they are currently being published alongside individual articles under this arrangement.

Any future implementation must clearly explain the scope of disclosure and ensure that the feature does not inadvertently disclose confidential reviewer reports or information that should remain protected. If reviewer comments or signed review reports are to be published, the additional permission and transparency requirements applicable to those materials must be satisfied.

ETFLIN may provide official certificates of recognition or other appropriate acknowledgments of reviewer service. Such recognition is not an endorsement of any particular editorial decision or a guarantee of future publication.

Reviewer Submissions to ETFLIN Journals

Individuals who have previously served as reviewers for an ETFLIN journal are not prohibited from submitting their own manuscripts to that journal.

Previous reviewing service does not create a conflict of interest by itself and does not entitle an author to preferential treatment. Reviewer submissions are subject to the same initial assessment, peer-review standards, ethical requirements, and editorial decision-making procedures applicable to other manuscripts.

ETFLIN does not impose a mandatory waiting period based solely on the number of issues published after a reviewer has completed an earlier assignment. A reviewer's manuscript may be submitted and considered according to the journal's regular editorial workflow without an automatic two-issue publication delay.

The manuscript must be handled by an appropriately independent editor. A reviewer who becomes an author of a submission must not participate in the selection of reviewers, editorial assessment, or decision-making concerning that submission. Any editor or reviewer with a relevant conflict of interest must recuse themselves from the process.

Reviewers who subsequently submit their own work remain bound by the confidentiality obligations arising from earlier assignments. They must not use unpublished information, confidential editorial correspondence, reviewer identities, or ideas obtained through prior reviews to gain an advantage in preparing or evaluating their own work.

The absence of a mandatory waiting period does not guarantee acceptance or publication. The submitted manuscript remains subject to the normal review timeline, the availability of suitable independent reviewers, and the editorial assessment of its scientific merit.

This approach is consistent with the emphasis in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers on confidentiality, impartiality, conflicts of interest, and independent judgment. Those safeguards address the relevant integrity risks without requiring a blanket prohibition on a reviewer submitting work to the same journal.

Ethical Conduct and Reporting Concerns

Reviewers must provide objective, constructive, respectful, and evidence-based assessments. They must not use review comments to harass authors, discriminate against individuals or groups, promote personal interests, or demand irrelevant citations.

Reviewers must not attempt to influence editorial outcomes for personal, financial, institutional, or competitive advantage. They must not fabricate concerns, misrepresent the manuscript, or make unsupported allegations about the authors' conduct.

Where a reviewer identifies suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, unethical experimentation, undisclosed competing interests, or another serious concern, the matter must be reported confidentially to the responsible editor with supporting information wherever possible.

Reviewers should not independently investigate suspected misconduct beyond their role or contact institutions, participants, or other parties without appropriate authorization. The editor determines whether further documentation, additional review, or a separate research-integrity procedure is necessary.

Concerns involving authorship, research ethics, competing interests, or possible misconduct will be handled under the relevant ETFLIN policies and procedures. A concern raised in a review is not automatically proof of misconduct; it must be assessed on the available evidence.

Final Editorial Authority and Acceptance

The editor assigned to the manuscript retains final responsibility for the editorial decision. Reviewer reports are important sources of expert advice, but they do not independently determine whether the manuscript is accepted or rejected.

A manuscript may be rejected despite favorable reviewer recommendations when the editor identifies material problems relating to scope, scientific validity, originality, research integrity, ethical compliance, or other legitimate editorial requirements.

Conversely, a manuscript may remain under consideration despite a negative reviewer recommendation when the editor determines that the criticism is not sufficiently supported, has been addressed by the authors, or requires further expert assessment. Such decisions must be based on the evidence and the journal's requirements rather than arbitrary preference.

No individual or organization can promise acceptance before the required editorial process has been completed. Claims that a reviewer, editor, staff member, publisher representative, or intermediary can guarantee publication must not be treated as official editorial commitments.

Formal acceptance is communicated only through the journal's authorized editorial process. Subsequent production and publication remain subject to the applicable publication requirements.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit a formal appeal if they believe that an editorial decision involved a procedural error, a material misunderstanding of the submitted evidence, or another legitimate basis for reconsideration.

Appeals must follow ETFLIN's Appeals and Complaints Policy. They are subject to independent reassessment where practicable and do not guarantee that the original decision will be reversed.

Disagreement with a reviewer is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that an editorial decision was improper. Authors should identify the specific concern, explain the basis for the appeal, and provide relevant supporting information.

Policy Review

ETFLIN will periodically review this policy to maintain consistency between the stated peer-review procedures, the journal's editorial systems, and recognized publication ethics principles.

Material changes to reviewer deadlines, confidentiality arrangements, recognition practices, or review models will be reflected in the policy and implemented through the relevant editorial workflow.

Questions concerning this policy may be directed to the relevant journal's editorial office or to halo@etflin.com.