Peer Review Process

RSEL uses double-blind peer review. Authors do not know the identity of reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of authors. Peer review is a core mechanism to ensure the scholarly quality and integrity of the journal’s publications

1.- Stages of the editorial process

1) Receipt and initial checks (pre-check)
The editorial office verifies that the submission is complete and meets minimum formal requirements (required files, anonymised PDF, metadata, and basic compliance with the style sheet).

2) Editorial screening (desk review)
The editors assess whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope and meets a minimum threshold of quality and relevance. Submissions may be rejected at this stage if they:

  • fall outside the journal’s scope,
  • present major deficiencies in structure or argumentation,
  • fail basic originality or manuscript-preparation requirements, or
  • do not adequately preserve anonymity.

3) Assignment to external reviewers
Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are sent to at least two external reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewer selection is based on subject fit and the absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewers are normally asked to return reports within 4 weeks. A third review may be requested when reports diverge.

4) Peer review reports
Reviewers provide reports with comments for the authors and, where appropriate, confidential comments for the editors. Reviews should be objective, evidence-based, and constructive.

5) Editorial decision
Based on the reports and editorial assessment, the journal will issue one of the following decisions:

  • Reject
  • Revise (major changes) and resubmit
  • Revise (minor changes)
  • Accept

6) Assessment of revised versions
When revision is requested, the editors evaluate the authors’ response and changes. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers, particularly in cases of major revision.

7) Copyediting and proofs
After acceptance, manuscripts enter production. Authors will receive proofs for correction of typographical errors and minor changes as described under Submissions.

2.- General evaluation criteria
Typical criteria include:

  • originality and contribution to the field;
  • conceptual soundness and clarity of argumentation;
  • adequacy and timeliness of the literature;
  • methodological rigor and reliability of analysis (where relevant);
  • clarity of writing and structure;
  • compliance with the journal’s policies and guidelines.

 3.- Indicative timelines
RSEL aims to provide timely decisions without compromising rigor. As a reference, reviewers are normally asked to return their report within 4 weeks. Overall timelines may vary depending on reviewers’ availability and the number of revision rounds.

4.- Confidentiality and conflicts of interest
The manuscript and the review process are confidential. Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest (financial, professional, personal, institutional, or competitive). Where a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the invitation or seek guidance from the editors.

5.- Data, materials, and anonymity
If the assessment requires access to data, materials, or additional information, requests should be channeled through the editorial team. Reviewers should not request information from authors in ways that could compromise double-blind review. Any potentially identifying elements should be reported to the editors.

6.- Use of AI tools and editorial integrity
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT and large language models (LLMs), in research is expanding rapidly. RSEL endorses the Committee on Publication Ethics' (COPE) view that 1) AI has no legal claim to authorship of research publications, 2) AI cannot be held accountable for work, 3) AI cannot assert competing interests or consent to licensing agreements, and 4) AI cannot be included as an author or co-author of academic research. The European Commission states that researchers are accountable for the integrity of all AI-assisted content (see 'Living Guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI in research'). RSEL therefore requires authors to take responsibility for the research they submit.
Authors and reviewers are expected to comply with the journal’s integrity standards. Any concerns about undisclosed AI tool use or potential policy breaches should be reported confidentially to the Editorial Team for assessment.

 7.- Complaints, appeals, and further assessment
Authors may request reconsideration of a decision by providing clear scholarly grounds. The editors review requests and, where appropriate, may lead to additional assessment. Any complaint regarding the process will be handled in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics policies.

8.- Thematic special issues/sections and guest editors
RSEL publishes thematic special issues/sections edited by guest editors. Guest editors work in coordination with the journal’s editorial team and are subject to the same peer review, confidentiality, conflict-of-interest, and decision-making standards. Final acceptance decisions rest with the journal’s Editorial Team.