Peer review
The journal's AI-assisted tools support editorial triage and revision planning; they do not replace qualified human peer review or editorial judgment.
Review model
Double-anonymized peer review. Author identities are withheld from reviewers and reviewer identities are withheld from authors.
At least 2 independent reviews are sought for a research article. Prepare an anonymised manuscript accordingly: keep identifying information out of the file, and cite your own prior work in the third person.
Review workflow
- Initial editorial and technical checks.
- Assessment of scope, contribution, methodology, evidence, and research integrity.
- Independent peer review according to the article type and editorial policy.
- Author revision and response where required.
- Final editorial decision and production checks.
A manuscript's MLA citation is available at every one of these stages, labelled with the stage it is at. See the MLA style guide.
Who recommends and who decides
A reviewer's recommendation is advice to an editor, not a verdict. The handling editor weighs the reviews against the manuscript and recommends; the Editor-in-Chief decides. The publisher has no vote at any point.
See the full responsibility matrix · Reviewer guidelines · Appeals
AI-assisted review safeguards
AI-generated assessments are advisory. Reviewers and editors remain responsible for scientific judgment, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, interpretation of evidence, and publication decisions.
View the AI-assisted review protocol AI use policy