Peer Review Model

DEMETER uses a double-blind peer review model. During the review process, the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

Authors are therefore responsible for preparing manuscripts in a manner that does not unnecessarily disclose their identity in the anonymized manuscript file.

Manuscripts proceeding to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise who are not part of the journal's editorial team.

Editorial and Peer Review Workflow

1. Submission and Administrative Check. The editorial office checks the manuscript for completeness, conformity with the journal's submission requirements, required declarations, manuscript structure, and other technical requirements.
2. Initial Editorial Assessment. The Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, or an assigned editor evaluates whether the manuscript is relevant to the journal's Focus and Scope and whether it demonstrates sufficient scholarly quality to proceed to external review.
3. Research Integrity Screening. Where appropriate, submissions may undergo similarity screening and other editorial integrity checks before or during editorial evaluation. Results from automated tools are interpreted by the editorial team and are not used as the sole basis for an editorial decision.
4. Reviewer Selection. Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
5. Double-Blind Peer Review. Reviewers independently assess the manuscript while the identities of authors and reviewers remain concealed from each other.
6. Editorial Evaluation of Reviews. The assigned editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and recommendations. Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not automatically determine it.
7. Author Revision. When revision is requested, authors should respond carefully to the reviewers' and editor's comments and provide a clear response describing the revisions made or explaining why a particular recommendation was not followed.
8. Further Review, Where Necessary. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor. Additional review may be requested when necessary to determine whether substantive concerns have been adequately addressed.
9. Final Editorial Decision. The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor based on the manuscript's scholarly quality, reviewers' assessments, revisions, ethical considerations, and compliance with journal policies.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide constructive scholarly comments. Assessment may include:

• relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope;
• originality and significance of the research;
• clarity of the research objectives or questions;
• appropriateness and transparency of the methodology;
• validity and clarity of the results;
• quality and depth of the discussion;
• support of conclusions by the reported findings;
• appropriate engagement with relevant scholarly literature;
• quality and clarity of tables, figures, and other research materials;
• ethical considerations and research integrity, where applicable; and
• overall scholarly contribution of the manuscript.

Editorial Decisions

Following editorial assessment and peer review, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

• Accept — the manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to final editorial processing where necessary.
• Minor Revision — limited revisions are required before a final decision can be made.
• Major Revision — substantial revisions and/or additional evaluation are required.
• Reject — the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form or does not meet the journal's scholarly requirements.

An invitation to revise a manuscript does not constitute a guarantee of eventual acceptance.

Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct

Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, discuss, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal, professional, competitive, or other advantage.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments and should avoid personal criticism or discriminatory considerations.

Reviewers should declare any actual, potential, or perceived competing interest that could affect their ability to provide an impartial assessment. When an appropriate and unbiased review cannot be provided, the reviewer should decline the invitation or inform the editor.

Ethical Concerns Identified During Review

Reviewers who identify possible plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed competing interests, ethical concerns, or other potential research or publication misconduct should confidentially inform the handling editor.

Reviewers should not independently investigate allegations or contact authors directly regarding suspected misconduct. Ethical concerns are handled through the journal's applicable publication ethics procedures.

AI and Automated Tools in Peer Review

Reviewers and editors must protect the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts. Manuscript content, supplementary materials, or confidential review information must not be uploaded to generative AI systems or other external automated services where doing so could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, privacy, or research integrity.

Generative AI must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly assessment or the editor's editorial judgment. Detailed provisions concerning the use of AI and automated technologies are governed by the journal's AI Ethics and Procedure policy.

Submissions from Editors or Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by an editor, editorial board member, reviewer, or other person associated with the journal are subject to the same editorial standards and peer review requirements as other submissions.

An editor or board member who is an author of a submitted manuscript must not participate in reviewer selection, evaluation, discussion, or the editorial decision concerning that manuscript. Editorial responsibility will be assigned to another qualified editor without a relevant competing interest.

Special Issues and Invited Content

Scholarly articles published in special issues are subject to the same editorial standards and independent peer review requirements as articles published in regular issues.

Guest editors, where appointed, operate under the oversight of the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the scholarly and ethical standards of the journal.

Review and Publication Time

DEMETER seeks to conduct editorial assessment and peer review efficiently while maintaining the quality and integrity of the evaluation process. The duration of peer review may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the extent of revisions required, and the number of review rounds.

The journal therefore does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a fixed period. Authors will be informed when substantial delays occur.