Peer Review Policy
The journal applies a double-blind peer-review process in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Authors must therefore prepare manuscripts so that their identities are not revealed, directly or indirectly.
Initial editorial assessment
All submitted manuscripts are first assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor for their relevance to the journal’s scope, scholarly quality, originality, compliance with submission requirements, and adherence to research and publication ethics. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external review.
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to a handling editor who oversees the peer-review process.
External peer review
Research articles are evaluated by at least two reviewers with relevant subject expertise.
Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor on the basis of:
- expertise relevant to the manuscript;
- ability to provide a rigorous and timely assessment;
- absence of relevant conflicts of interest; and
- appropriate institutional independence from the authors where necessary.
Members of the Editorial Board may act as reviewers when they have appropriate expertise and no conflict of interest. However, peer review must not rely exclusively on members of the journal's editorial staff. Reviewers are normally asked to submit their reports within 30 days.
Assessment criteria
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript with regard to:
- originality and contribution to scholarship;
- relevance to the scope of the journal;
- theoretical grounding and engagement with relevant research;
- methodological rigour and reproducibility, where applicable;
- quality and appropriate analysis of data;
- strength of the discussion and conclusions;
- ethical compliance;
- clarity, structure, and quality of presentation.
Reviews should be objective, constructive and supported by appropriate arguments. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and must not use information obtained through peer review for personal or third-party advantage.
Editorial decisions
Based on the reviewers’ reports and the editor’s assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:
- accept;
- accept subject to minor revisions;
- major revisions and further evaluation;
- reject.
Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to respond to reviewers' comments and indicate how the manuscript has been revised. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the handling editor, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.
Reviewers provide recommendations, but publication decisions are the responsibility of the journal. The handling editor evaluates the reviews and makes a recommendation. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or another designated editor who has no conflict of interest concerning the manuscript.
Conflicts of interest and editorial independence
Authors, reviewers and editors must disclose any relationships or interests that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the evaluation of a manuscript.
Reviewers must decline an invitation when a relevant personal, professional, institutional, collaborative or financial conflict of interest exists.
Editors must not handle or make decisions on:
- their own submissions;
- manuscripts authored by close collaborators or persons with whom they have a relevant conflict of interest; or
- any other submission for which their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
In such cases, responsibility for the manuscript is transferred to another qualified editor without a conflict of interest.
Submissions from members of the Editorial Board or from authors affiliated with Vilnius University are subject to the same editorial and peer-review criteria as all other submissions.
Such manuscripts are handled by an editor without a relevant conflict of interest and are evaluated by independent external reviewers. Institutional affiliation does not influence editorial decisions.
Confidentiality and research integrity
All manuscripts and peer-review reports are treated as confidential. Reviewers should inform the editor of suspected plagiarism, substantial overlap with other publications, unethical research practices, or other concerns relating to research integrity.
The journal follows the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Vilnius University Press Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement (see here) in addressing ethical concerns, complaints and disputes arising during the editorial and peer-review process.
Appeals and complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant error occurred in the review or decision-making process.
Appeals must provide a clear justification and are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or another editor who was not involved in the disputed decision whenever a conflict of interest exists.
Complaints concerning editorial procedures, publication ethics or conflicts of interest are handled in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy and COPE guidance.