Review process

All research publications of the journal, both full-length articles (section A) and shorter contributions (section B) undergo a multi-stage double-blind peer-review process to ensure the scientific and editorial quality of each article. All submissions are reviewed by the editorial board and at least one independent external reviewer who is an expert in the relevant field of research. Miscellaneous contributions (section C) such as review articles, field notes, and obituaries, will receive editorial review.

The procedure described and illustrated below applies to all peer-review sections of the journal to which authors can submit articles. The editorial board aims to publish high quality articles and to develop them further with the authors during the review and editorial process. Generally, the successful publication process takes around six months from submission to publication of an article. Only in exceptional cases it may take longer.
Contributions to section C are marked as non-reviewed in the published article version.

1 | Article preselection

All submissions are primarily reviewed by the editorial board. The following basic criteria must be met:

• The submission fits thematically within the scope and selected section of the journal.
• The manuscript has not been previously published elsewhere.
• The journal's author guidelines have been followed.
• The article is coherent and clearly written in English (including language and grammar).

Articles that do not meet the basic criteria are usually rejected during the article preselection process.

2 | Review

All submissions will be reviewed by at least one member of the editorial team and one independent external reviewer who is an expert in the relevant field of research. The following review criteria must be met:

• Ethical guidelines: The guidelines of the journal are met.
• Relevance: Content of the article fits the journal's scope and readership.
• Research: The scientific research questions are presented clearly and understandably within the article.
• Background: The theoretical and scientific background is presented in detail and is included in the discussion.
• Methods: Scientific methods are described transparently.
• Results: Results and conclusions are clearly presented and discussed in a comprehensible way.

3 | Editorial assessment

The expert opinion-based evaluation is performed by the editorial team and leads to the following options:

➟ accept for publication
➟ accept for publication with minor revision
➟ accept for publication with significant revision
➟ declined for publication

The editorial board may decide at this point to request additional reviews by independent external reviewers. In that case, the authors will be notified.

4 | Revision

The authors have the opportunity to revise the manuscript based on the reviews and editorial comments as well as to respond to questions and comments from the reviewers.

5 | Editorial decision

The editorial board can make a final decision directly or, if significant changes were requested, after consultation with the reviewers. One of the following decisions is made:

➟ accept for publication
➟ re-evaluation by the previous reviewers or a new reviewer ➟ step (2)
➟ decline for publication