Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

Sustainable Planet Sciences uses single-blind peer review: reviewers know the identity of the authors, but authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. This is the most common model in the environmental sciences and is well-suited to transparent, rigorous review.

The Review Process

1. Initial Check (3-5 days) — The editorial office verifies scope, completeness, and basic quality. Out-of-scope or seriously deficient submissions may be rejected at this stage.
2. Editor Assignment — A handling editor with relevant expertise is assigned to the manuscript.
3. Reviewer Invitation — The handling editor identifies and invites 2-3 expert reviewers. Reviewers have 5 days to accept or decline.
4. Review Period (typically 3-4 weeks) — Reviewers prepare detailed reports assessing scientific merit, methodology, novelty, and clarity.
5. Editorial Decision (1-2 weeks) — The handling editor consolidates reviews and recommends a decision, which is approved by the Editor-in-Chief.
6. Communication — The decision and reviewer comments are shared with the corresponding author.

Typical total time from submission to first decision: 6-8 weeks.

Decision Outcomes

• Accept — Manuscript is accepted with no or minimal changes
• Minor Revisions — Revisions addressing specific issues required (author has 30 days)
• Major Revisions — Substantial revisions required; may involve re-review (author has 60 days)
• Reject with Encouragement to Resubmit — Work has potential but requires fundamental changes; resubmission as new manuscript
• Reject — Manuscript not suitable for publication

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their demonstrated expertise in the subject area, absence of conflicts of interest, and availability. Authors may suggest potential reviewers during submission, but the handling editor is not obligated to use them.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe (typically 21 days)
• Provide constructive, professional feedback focused on the science
• Maintain strict confidentiality
• Declare any conflicts of interest
• Contact the editor if they identify concerns about misconduct

Reviewer Recognition

We recognise reviewer contributions through:

• Optional listing on the journal’s annual reviewer thank-you page
• Integration with Publons/Web of Science Reviewer Recognition
• Personalised certificates on request

Transparent Peer Review (Optional)

Authors may opt-in to publishing the reviewer reports alongside their accepted article (reviewers remain anonymous unless they waive anonymity). This promotes transparency and educational value for future authors.

Appeals

Authors may appeal decisions in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 14 days. Appeals should identify specific procedural or factual errors in the handling of the manuscript.