Editorial process

1. Administrative screening: completeness of files, metadata, anonymization, and statements.
2. Initial editorial assessment: scope, contribution, baseline quality, methods, ethics, and originality.
3. Similarity assessment: contextual review of matches; no percentage alone determines an outcome.
4. Editorial assignment: appointment of a conflict-free editor.
5. Double-anonymous review: at least two independent specialists whenever feasible.
6. Decision: accept; accept with minor revisions; request major revisions and further review; reject with an option to submit a substantially new manuscript; or reject.
7. Revision assessment: a documented author response and editorial or external verification.
8. Editing: content, language, metadata, references, licenses, and statements.
9. Production: proofs, basic accessibility, link checks, and proof approval.
10. Publication: actual assignment to a volume and issue, date, metadata, files, and notification.

Reviewer recommendations inform the decision; final responsibility rests with the competent editor. No fixed turnaround time is guaranteed. Timing depends on complexity, reviewer availability, review quality, and author response. OJS records the actual dates of each stage.

Conflicts and submissions from team members

When a team member submits a manuscript, that person is excluded from access, assessment, and decision-making. An independent editor is assigned and the same process applies.