Editorial Process

Manuscript pathway

Main pathway for submissions requiring external peer review.

1. Submission →

   Receipt and technical checks

2. Initial assessment →

   Scope and editorial suitability

3. Peer review →

   Independent external assessment

4. Editorial decision

   Reports and editor’s assessment

Incomplete submissions may be returned for completion; initial assessment can also result in rejection without external review. Further revision rounds may follow reassessment.

Submission receipt and registration

The process begins when the manuscript and its files are submitted through OJS. The corresponding author keeps contact details up to date and serves as the journal’s point of contact. The submission is recorded for tracking; receipt does not mean that it has been admitted to peer review or accepted for publication.

The journal checks that the submitted version has the authors’ approval and is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.

Technical and documentation checks

The editorial office checks file completeness, metadata, declarations and compliance with the relevant section requirements. Where applicable, it checks that the manuscript and materials intended for reviewers have been anonymised.

Missing information or correctable technical problems are returned to the authors for completion before processing continues. A technical return is not a scientific rejection decision.

Initial editorial assessment

The handling editor assesses the manuscript’s fit with the scope of PRAXIS, the relevance of its contribution, the clarity of its aims and its preliminary methodological adequacy. The editor also determines whether the article type requires external review.

The outcome may be referral to peer review, a request for preliminary adjustments or rejection without external review. An editorial rejection is communicated with an explanation of its reasons.

Integrity checks and reviewer assignment

Before and during assessment, authorship, funding, conflicts of interest, ethics approval, consent and study registration are checked as applicable. Textual overlap is assessed in context; a similarity percentage alone does not establish plagiarism.

Reviewers are selected for subject or methodological expertise, independence and availability. They must declare conflicts of interest and decline when these would compromise assessment. Integrity concerns may pause processing while clarification is sought.

External peer review

Research articles and other contributions requiring external assessment undergo double-anonymous peer review: author and reviewer identities are not disclosed to one another during assessment. Editorials and letters may undergo editorial assessment or external review depending on their content.

Reports assess the research question, design, analyses, presentation of results, limitations and support for the conclusions. Reviewers provide reasoned recommendations; decisions remain the editor’s responsibility rather than an automatic vote on the reports.

First decision following peer review

The editor considers the reports alongside their own assessment and sends a reasoned decision to the corresponding author. Significant disagreement or unresolved technical issues may require an additional specialist report.

Possible decisions are acceptance, minor revision, major revision or rejection. A favourable reviewer recommendation is not acceptance, and an invitation to revise does not guarantee publication.

Author revision

Authors submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to editorial and reviewer comments. They identify their changes and respectfully justify any requested modifications they consider inappropriate.

The decision letter specifies the response deadline. Authors who need an extension should request it before the deadline. Authorship changes require justification and editorial assessment; they are not made informally.

Reassessment and final decision

The editor checks the response and revised version. Substantial changes may be referred back to reviewers or to an additional specialist. Unresolved concerns may lead to another revision round or rejection.

Acceptance is issued only when relevant scientific and editorial concerns have been resolved. Rejection is communicated with its reasons. Authors may request withdrawal before publication through a formal communication, whose receipt and status must be confirmed by the journal.

Editorial production and proof review

After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, reference and metadata checks, and typesetting. The corresponding author receives proofs to identify errors and check names, affiliations, tables, figures and other details.

This stage should not be used to introduce substantial scientific changes without authorisation. If new information affects the validity of the work, publication is paused for assessment; acceptance does not remove the duty to uphold integrity.

Publication and follow-up

Once proofs are approved and editorial checks are complete, the article is published according to the journal’s schedule. Bibliographic information, relevant editorial dates and applicable declarations accompany the article.

After publication, significant errors or concerns are assessed through correction, expression-of-concern or retraction procedures, depending on the case. Publication does not end the responsibility of authors and the journal for the accuracy of the scientific record.

Safeguards throughout the process

Independence and confidentiality

Manuscripts authored by editors or editorial board members must be handled by an editor without a conflict of interest; the author must not participate in selecting reviewers or deciding on their own work. Files and reports remain confidential and are used only for authorised editorial assessment.

Communication and traceability

Decisions, revision requests and manuscript versions are recorded in OJS. Authors can follow their submission in the system. Queries should identify the manuscript; appeals must provide specific grounds and follow the journal’s complaints and appeals procedure.

Relationship with other policies

This page describes the workflow. File preparation belongs in the author guidelines; detailed ethical requirements, licensing and complaints procedures remain in their respective policies, without being duplicated here.

INDICATIVE SCHEDULE

Estimated editorial timelines