For reviewers

EWA Publishing supports its reviewers by providing clear guidelines and resources to uphold ethical standards and review quality. Editors, reviewers, and authors are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the specific policies of the series.

This policy is crafted to reflect EWA Publishing’s dedication to the advancement of knowledge through ethical and transparent peer-review practices, supporting our reviewers, authors, and editors in contributing to the integrity of the scholarly record.

Reviewers' responsibilities

Objectivity and confidentiality

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and without bias. They must keep the contents of the manuscripts confidential and not use the information for personal gain or disclose it to others.

Timeliness and thoroughness

Reviews should be completed in a timely manner and provide comprehensive and constructive feedback to assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could compromise their ability to provide an impartial review.

Identity

Reviewers must be experts in their respective fields, capable of providing unbiased and objective evaluations of manuscripts. To maintain impartiality and prevent conflicts of interest, reviewers should not be:

• Affiliated with the same institution as any of the manuscript's co-authors
• Associated with the funding body of the manuscript under review
• Identified through personal email accounts (e.g., Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail) if an institutional affiliation cannot be confirmed through a basic verification process (involving a search of the reviewer's name, department, and institution)

EWA Publishing enables authors to recommend or oppose specific reviewers at the time of submission, balancing author preferences with editorial discretion.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts assigned for review are to be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose any information about the manuscript or its review process to third parties or contact the authors directly without explicit authorization from the editor.

While collaborative discussions and co-reviewing practices are acknowledged, reviewers must obtain prior approval from the editor to ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that all contributors are appropriately recognized.

Any unpublished data or ideas disclosed within a manuscript must remain confidential and cannot be used for the reviewer's personal research without the author's written permission. Reviewers are entrusted to safeguard the confidentiality and proprietary information encountered during the review process.

Conflict of interest

Submissions by Editors or Editorial Board members are subject to the same rigorous review process, managed by alternative members of the Board to eliminate any potential conflict of interest. The involved Editor/Board member will abstain from any decision-making related to their submission.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted with objectivity and professionalism. Reviewers must be mindful of personal biases and ensure they do not influence the review outcome. Personal criticism of the authors is deemed unprofessional and unacceptable. Feedback should be constructive, with clear articulation and substantiation of any points of critique.

When recommending citations of their own or associates' work, reviewers must ensure that such recommendations are strictly for the purpose of enhancing the manuscript's scientific merit. The intent must not be to increase personal citation counts or to unduly elevate the visibility of their or their associates' work.

Reviewers consent to the potential transfer of manuscripts and their reviews within EWA Publishing's network to align with series themes or when a manuscript may find a more suitable publication venue. This includes transferring reviewer details to ensure continuity and efficiency in the review process. EWA Publishing adheres to COPE’s Core Practices, ensuring transparency and ethical standards are maintained during transfers and across all publishing activities.

Peer Review Policy

Policy Overview

To ensure the academic rigor, originality, and high quality of research findings published in the journals under our press, all submitted research articles, reviews, and most other article types must undergo a rigorous and impartial peer review process. Our press primarily adopts the single-blind peer review model (where reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, but authors remain anonymous to reviewers). Certain specific journals may employ a double-blind peer review model (where both parties' identities are concealed until publication), as detailed in the respective journal's guidelines.

The core objective is to select manuscripts demonstrating significant academic value, innovation, and scientific reliability through independent expert assessment, while providing authors with constructive feedback for improvement.

Peer Review Process Steps

The entire review process follows a standardized procedure, as outlined below:

Step 1: Initial Editorial Office Check

Upon submission, the Editorial Office conducts an initial screening, which includes:

• Format and Scope: Verifying that the manuscript complies with the journal's formatting requirements, academic standards, and scope.
• Originality Check: Screening for academic misconduct using professional anti-plagiarism software, with a defined similarity threshold (e.g., typically not exceeding 25%).
• Completeness: Confirming that all necessary materials (such as figures, tables, data, etc.) are complete.

Manuscripts failing the initial check will be returned or rejected directly.

Step 2: Assessment by Academic Editor

Manuscripts passing the initial check are assigned to an Academic Editor (typically the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Editorial Board member) in the relevant field. The Academic Editor assesses the manuscript's overall academic potential, novelty, and alignment with the journal's aims, and decides whether to proceed with peer review. Should the Academic Editor have any potential conflicts of interest regarding the manuscript, handling will be transferred to another editor without conflicts.

Step 3: Peer Review Execution

The Academic Editor is responsible for inviting at least two independent experts in the field to review the manuscript. Review criteria include:

• Novelty and Academic Significance: Whether the study provides new knowledge or insights.
• Methodology and Scientific Rigor: The appropriateness of the experimental design, the validity and sufficiency of the data, and the soundness of the analysis.
• Results and Conclusions: Whether the conclusions are fully supported by the data.
• Presentation and Structure: The clarity of the narrative, logical coherence, and adherence to language standards.

Step 4: Editorial Decision and Author Communication

The Academic Editor synthesizes all reviewer comments to reach a final decision, which is communicated to the corresponding author via the submission system. Decision types include:

• Acceptance without Revision: The manuscript is accepted for publication as is (rare).
• Acceptance after Minor Revisions: Requires minor, non-critical revisions.
• Reconsideration after Major Revisions: Requires significant or substantial revisions. The revised manuscript will typically be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
• Rejection: The manuscript has fundamental flaws and does not meet the journal's publication standards.

Step 5: Revision and Re-review

For manuscripts requiring revision, authors must submit a revised version within the stipulated timeframe, accompanied by a detailed point-by-point response letter addressing all comments and suggestions raised by the reviewers. All changes made in the manuscript should be clearly highlighted. The revised manuscript and responses will be assessed by the Academic Editor and, if necessary, the original reviewers until it meets the acceptance criteria.