Avloryn PublicationsPeer review policy
Model. Double-anonymous. Authors do not learn who reviewed their work, and reviewers are not told who wrote it. Manuscripts must therefore be submitted without identifying information in the main file.
Reviewers. Every research article, review, case study and technical note is assessed by at least two independent external reviewers. The exceptions, and there are only two: an editorial is not externally reviewed, and a Discussion & Closure piece is assessed by the handling editor, who sends it to the original authors for a response. Both are labelled on the article so a reader always knows what a piece has been through. Reviewers are external to the authors' institutions and declare any conflict before accepting. Where two reviewers disagree materially, a third is appointed before any decision is taken.
Reviewers work from a structured form, not a blank box — specific questions on methods, data, analysis, and the strength of the conclusions. This exists so authors receive usable criticism rather than an opinion.
Targets we publish and report against.
| Stage | Target |
|---|---|
| Desk decision | 7 days |
| Reviewer assignment | 14 days |
| First decision | 6–8 weeks |
| Author revision window | 4 weeks |
| Acceptance to publication | 3–4 weeks |
These are targets, and we publish our actual performance against them. A journal that promises a decision in days is not reviewing; a journal that will not say how long it takes is not accountable.
Editorial decisions are: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or decline. Authors receive the full reviewer comments and the handling editor's letter in every case, including a decline.
Desk decisions. A submission may be declined without external review where it is outside scope, incomplete, not anonymised, or falls below a basic threshold of rigour. We aim to do this within seven days, because a fast decline returns the author's time to them.