Review Process Policy

Journal EPiC uses double-blind peer review to support an impartial assessment of submitted manuscripts. Author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors. Editors have access to information necessary to manage the review process.

Peer review evaluates a manuscript’s originality, scholarly contribution, methodological rigor, validity, relevance, and clarity. Editorial decisions are based on the merits of the work and its suitability for the journal.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system and follow the Author Guidelines and manuscript template. Submissions must include the required author information, declarations, and supporting documents.

To support double-blind review, authors should provide identifying information separately from the manuscript intended for reviewers. Names, affiliations, acknowledgments, file properties, and other identifying details should be removed or anonymized as appropriate. Relevant self-citations should be retained and written in a neutral manner.

Although the journal takes reasonable steps to preserve anonymity, identification may still be possible through preprints, publicly available research materials, or the specialized nature of the work.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team assesses each submission before deciding whether to send it for external review. Initial screening considers:

Alignment with the journal’s Focus and Scope.
The clarity of the research problem and the potential contribution to knowledge.
Basic methodological or analytical adequacy.
Compliance with submission and formatting requirements.
Completeness of ethical, funding, authorship, and conflict of interest declarations, where applicable.
Potential plagiarism, inappropriate overlap, or other research integrity concerns.

A manuscript may be returned for technical corrections or declined without external review when it is outside the journal’s scope, lacks a sufficient scholarly contribution, or presents substantial quality or ethical concerns. Passing initial screening does not guarantee acceptance.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to at least one independent reviewer with relevant expertise. Additional reviewers or specialist advisers may be invited when the manuscript requires complementary expertise or when the available assessments do not provide a sufficient basis for a decision.

Reviewers are selected according to their subject knowledge, methodological expertise, independence, and ability to complete the assessment within the agreed period.

Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation and notify the editor if a conflict becomes apparent during assessment. They should decline assignments when a relationship or competing interest would compromise impartiality.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to provide a reasoned assessment of the manuscript, considering the following criteria as applicable:

Originality and significance of the research question, findings, theoretical development, or proposed method.
Relevance to the journal’s readership and scope.
Adequacy of the theoretical framework and engagement with relevant literature.
Appropriateness and transparency of the research design, data collection, and analytical procedures.
Validity of statistical analyses, mathematical arguments, proofs, models, or computational methods.
Consistency between the evidence, results, interpretations, and conclusions.
Recognition of limitations and avoidance of unsupported claims.
Clarity of presentation, including tables, figures, equations, and references.
Compliance with relevant ethical and reporting requirements.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviews must be objective, constructive, specific, and respectful. Reviewers should explain their recommendations and distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions.

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and must not use unpublished information for personal, professional, or financial advantage. Manuscripts must not be shared with another person without prior editorial permission. Any authorized assistance must be disclosed to the editor.

Confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded to external AI services or other tools that could compromise confidentiality. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy and substance of their assessments.

Suspected plagiarism, data irregularities, ethical problems, or substantial overlap should be reported confidentially to the editor with supporting details. Reviewers should not independently contact authors or investigate allegations beyond their review role.

6. Editorial Decisions

The handling editor evaluates the manuscript and reviewer reports before making or recommending a decision. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision but do not determine it by a simple vote. The editor may seek clarification or further advice when necessary.

Possible decisions include:

Accept: The manuscript meets the journal’s scholarly requirements and may proceed to production, subject to any final technical checks.
Minor Revision: Limited changes are required and may be assessed by the editor or returned to reviewers.
Major Revision or Resubmit for Review: Substantial changes are required, and the revised manuscript will normally undergo further assessment.
Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal or its concerns cannot be adequately resolved through revision.

A request for revision does not constitute a commitment to publish the manuscript.

7. Revision and Reassessment

Authors submitting a revision must provide a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to the editorial and reviewer comments. The response should identify the changes made and explain any recommendations that have not been followed.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the handling editor, the original reviewers, or additional reviewers. Further revision rounds may be required if substantive concerns remain unresolved.

Authors should meet the revision deadline specified in the decision letter or request an extension before that deadline.

8. Review Timeline

The journal aims to communicate an initial peer review outcome within approximately one to two months. This is an indicative target rather than a guaranteed deadline.

Actual processing times depend on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, author responsiveness, and any need for additional assessment. Revision rounds and production may require further time.

9. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editors must not handle manuscripts in which they have a relevant conflict of interest. Submissions authored by editors, editorial board members, or individuals closely connected to the handling editor will be assigned to an independent editor.

Such submissions are subject to the same assessment criteria as other manuscripts. Authors holding an editorial role must not participate in reviewer selection or influence decisions on their own work.

10. Acceptance and Production

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, and proof preparation. Authors may be asked to check proofs for typographical, formatting, and production errors.

Proof correction is not intended for adding substantial new findings or changing the study’s conclusions. Significant changes require editorial approval and may require further review.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by identifying a specific factual error, substantive misunderstanding, procedural concern, or new evidence relevant to the decision. Appeals should not consist solely of disagreement with an unfavorable outcome.

Appeals and complaints should be submitted through the journal. Where feasible, an appeal will be considered by an editor or representative who was not responsible for the original decision and has no relevant conflict of interest.

12. Ethical Guidance

The journal’s expectations for reviewers draw on the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers . Reference to these guidelines does not imply COPE membership.