A credible peer-review policy answers operational questions.
Authors should understand who screens the paper, how reviewers are selected, what remains confidential, who decides and how concerns are handled.
The policy should cover the full journey
Review model
Name single-anonymous, double-anonymous, open or another model and explain what identities or reports are shared.
Initial screening
Describe scope, completeness, originality, ethics and quality checks that can lead to desk rejection.
Reviewer selection
Explain expertise, identity verification, suggested reviewers, exclusions and conflict checks.
Reviewer conduct
Cover confidentiality, unpublished material, respectful reports, conflicts and any generative-AI restrictions.
Decisions and revisions
List possible outcomes, decision responsibility, revision rounds and circumstances for additional review.
Appeals and complaints
Separate academic appeals from procedural or conduct complaints and identify who considers them.
Protect editorial independence
- Fees and commercial relationships must not determine decisions.
- Editors should recuse themselves from relevant conflicts.
- Editor-authored papers need independent oversight.
- Special issues require named responsibility and equivalent safeguards.
- Reviewer identities and expertise should be verified.
- Timelines should be realistic, never used as guaranteed-acceptance marketing.
Match policy and practice
Do not claim external peer review for editorials, news or other content that bypasses it. Label article types accurately. Monitor whether actual handling follows the published workflow and correct the policy when procedures change.