Peer Review & Editorial Process

Peer review provides independent expert assessment of scholarly manuscripts and assists editors in determining whether a submission is suitable for publication in the relevant journal. The process is intended to improve the quality, accuracy, transparency, and scholarly value of published research.

Peer review does not guarantee that a manuscript is free from error, nor does a favourable review automatically result in acceptance. Final responsibility for editorial decisions rests with the authorised editor of the journal.

Primary research articles are subject to external scholarly peer review before acceptance. Review articles and other substantive scholarly contributions are also subjected to appropriate quality-control procedures according to the policy of the respective journal.

Where a journal permits authors to suggest potential reviewers, such suggestions are advisory only. Editors are under no obligation to use an author-nominated reviewer.

Reviewer identities, affiliations, institutional email addresses, research profiles, and expertise may be independently verified before an invitation is issued. Authors must not provide fabricated identities, false contact information, third-party email addresses presented as reviewer addresses, or other information intended to manipulate peer review.

Authors may also identify individuals whom they believe should not review the manuscript and may provide a reason. The editor may consider such requests but retains responsibility for final reviewer selection.

Reviewers provide expert advice; they do not make the final publication decision. The authorised editor evaluates the manuscript together with the review reports, author responses, journal scope, ethical requirements, and applicable editorial standards.

The editor is not required to follow a reviewer recommendation mechanically. Review reports may differ in quality, relevance, expertise, interpretation, or recommendation. Editors are responsible for exercising independent scholarly judgement.

Where reviewer reports are substantially conflicting, insufficient, inappropriate, or outside the reviewer's expertise, the editor may seek additional review or specialist advice before reaching a decision.

Manuscripts submitted to special issues, thematic collections, or guest-edited sections are subject to the same fundamental standards of scholarly quality, research integrity, independent review, competing-interest management, and editorial accountability as manuscripts submitted to regular issues.

Guest Editors should possess appropriate expertise and must disclose relevant competing interests. Their responsibilities operate under the oversight of the journal's permanent editorial leadership.

A Guest Editor must not make an unreviewed acceptance decision for their own manuscript or for another manuscript where a material conflict exists. Such manuscripts require independent handling.

The Editor-in-Chief or another designated senior editor retains authority to review, modify, decline, or intervene in special issue decisions when necessary to protect scholarly quality or publication integrity.

Supplementary files that contribute materially to interpretation of the research may be made available to reviewers where technically and ethically appropriate.

Reviewers may be asked to consider whether supplementary information supports the manuscript's claims, but journal publication of supplementary material does not necessarily constitute independent verification of every dataset, software file, protocol, or supporting record.

Editors may request underlying data, images, analysis files, ethics documentation, or other supporting evidence when reasonably necessary to assess a manuscript or investigate an integrity concern.

Macaw Publications recognises the importance of timely editorial handling while maintaining the quality and independence of peer review. Actual review duration varies according to manuscript complexity, discipline, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and the need for additional ethical or technical assessment.

Journal-specific processing information may describe typical or historical timeframes where these are supported by actual editorial performance. Such information represents an expectation rather than a guarantee.

Where substantial unexpected delay occurs, authors should receive reasonable information regarding manuscript status and may contact the journal's editorial office for clarification.

Macaw Publications does not guarantee acceptance, priority publication, favourable peer-review recommendations, or a particular editorial outcome within a specified period.

Complaints should provide sufficient information to identify the manuscript or publication concerned and should describe the specific issue as clearly as possible.

Complaints involving an individual editor should not, where reasonably possible, be adjudicated solely by that same editor. The matter may be referred to another senior editor or to the publisher for appropriate independent consideration.

Matters involving allegations of research or publication misconduct are considered under the Publication Ethics & Research Integrity policy.

Editorial decisions should be based on scholarly merit, methodological quality, ethical acceptability, relevance to the journal, and the reliability of the work.

Author charges, advertising, sponsorship, commercial relationships, institutional influence, publisher revenue, waiver eligibility, or the author's ability to pay must not determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.

The publisher may establish journal policies, maintain infrastructure, support ethical oversight, and ensure compliance with legal and publishing responsibilities, but should not improperly influence individual editorial decisions for commercial or reputational reasons.

Macaw Publications periodically reviews its peer-review and editorial policies to reflect developments in scholarly publishing, publication ethics, research integrity, technology, disciplinary standards, and recognised publishing guidance.

Declared policies should correspond to actual editorial practice. Where a journal adopts a different peer-review model or introduces a material procedural change, the relevant website information should be updated accordingly.

Reference to recognised external guidelines or organisations does not imply membership, accreditation, endorsement, or certification unless such status is separately stated and independently verifiable.