{"id":50,"date":"2026-04-19T21:22:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-19T21:22:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eia.niellosoft.com\/index.php\/peer-review\/"},"modified":"2026-04-19T21:22:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-19T21:22:00","slug":"peer-review","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/eia.niellosoft.com\/index.php\/peer-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Peer Review Policy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Peer Review Policy<\/h2>\n

Sustainable Planet Sciences<\/em> uses single-blind peer review<\/strong>: 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.<\/p>\n

The Review Process<\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. Initial Check<\/strong> (3-5 days) \u2014 The editorial office verifies scope, completeness, and basic quality. Out-of-scope or seriously deficient submissions may be rejected at this stage.<\/li>\n
  2. Editor Assignment<\/strong> \u2014 A handling editor with relevant expertise is assigned to the manuscript.<\/li>\n
  3. Reviewer Invitation<\/strong> \u2014 The handling editor identifies and invites 2-3 expert reviewers. Reviewers have 5 days to accept or decline.<\/li>\n
  4. Review Period<\/strong> (typically 3-4 weeks) \u2014 Reviewers prepare detailed reports assessing scientific merit, methodology, novelty, and clarity.<\/li>\n
  5. Editorial Decision<\/strong> (1-2 weeks) \u2014 The handling editor consolidates reviews and recommends a decision, which is approved by the Editor-in-Chief.<\/li>\n
  6. Communication<\/strong> \u2014 The decision and reviewer comments are shared with the corresponding author.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Typical total time from submission to first decision: 6-8 weeks.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Decision Outcomes<\/h3>\n
      \n
    • Accept<\/strong> \u2014 Manuscript is accepted with no or minimal changes<\/li>\n
    • Minor Revisions<\/strong> \u2014 Revisions addressing specific issues required (author has 30 days)<\/li>\n
    • Major Revisions<\/strong> \u2014 Substantial revisions required; may involve re-review (author has 60 days)<\/li>\n
    • Reject with Encouragement to Resubmit<\/strong> \u2014 Work has potential but requires fundamental changes; resubmission as new manuscript<\/li>\n
    • Reject<\/strong> \u2014 Manuscript not suitable for publication<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      Reviewer Selection<\/h3>\n

      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.<\/p>\n

      Reviewer Responsibilities<\/h3>\n

      Reviewers are expected to:<\/p>\n

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

        Reviewer Recognition<\/h3>\n

        We recognise reviewer contributions through:<\/p>\n

          \n
        • Optional listing on the journal’s annual reviewer thank-you page<\/li>\n
        • Integration with Publons\/Web of Science Reviewer Recognition<\/strong><\/li>\n
        • Personalised certificates on request<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

          Transparent Peer Review (Optional)<\/h3>\n

          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.<\/p>\n

          Appeals<\/h3>\n

          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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

          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\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-50","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/eia.niellosoft.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/50","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/eia.niellosoft.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/eia.niellosoft.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eia.niellosoft.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eia.niellosoft.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=50"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/eia.niellosoft.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/50\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/eia.niellosoft.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}