Peer Review Policy

Applies to the ESS Press book line: books, monographs, chapters, and conference proceedings. Journal articles are peer reviewed under the policies published on the journals’ own websites.

1) Peer review model

By default, we use double-blind peer review: reviewers do not know the authors, and authors do not know the reviewers.

Number of reviewers: at least two independent experts per manuscript/chapter.

Alternatives (project-specific): single-blind or open peer review are possible only by prior agreement and with an explicit note in the publication.

Editorial independence: final decisions are made by the handling editor / academic editor, informed by reviews but not delegated to reviewers.

For journals under service: submission and peer review take place only via the relevant journal website.

2) Process and timelines (SLA)

1. Initial screening (editorial office) — compliance with format, length, scope; basic originality / illustration checks.
   Timeline: up to 10 business days.
2. Reviewer selection — subject/methods expertise, absence of COI, diversity of geographies/schools.
   Selection/confirmation timeline: 5–10 business days.
3. Peer review — analytical report against quality criteria, recommendations, and specific edits.
   Timeline: typically 3–6 weeks (volume-dependent; full monographs may take up to 8 weeks).
4. Editorial decision — Accept / Minor revision / Major revision / Reject + consolidated letter to authors.
   Timeline: up to 10 business days after all reviews are received.
5. Author revision — point-by-point response + revised manuscript with track changes.
   Timeline for Minor: up to 6 weeks · for Major: 12 weeks (by agreement).
6. Re-check — for Major/substantial revisions, re-review may be required.
   Timeline: 1–2 weeks.

Communication: status is visible to authors; delays > 5 business days are proactively communicated.

3) Quality criteria (what reviewers assess)

Scientific significance and novelty: contribution to the field, originality, relevance of research questions.

Methodology and substantiation: appropriateness of design, sources, and analytical methods; transparency of limitations.

Structure and logic: clear argumentation, chapter/book composition, coherence across sections.

Work with data/sources: reliability, correct referencing, data ethics; replicability where datasets/code exist.

Illustrations: relevance, quality, captions, rights to images/tables.

Clarity of presentation: readability, terminology, consistent style.

Ethics and COI: absence of plagiarism/duplication; disclosed conflicts of interest/funding.

Fit with project goals: audience, series, publication format, competitiveness.

4) Decision matrix

Accept — minor editorial-level changes only.

Minor revision — clarifications, local additions, corrections to style/references/figures; no restructuring.

Major revision — substantial reworking required (structure, sections, analysis, additional material/illustrations).

Reject — methodological/ethical issues, insufficient originality/significance, or mismatch with the project format.

Note: the editor may request “revise & resubmit” with a new peer review cycle.

5) Confidentiality and conduct

The manuscript and review materials are confidential; it is prohibited to distribute them or use ideas prior to publication.

Anonymity is maintained according to the selected model; identity disclosure is possible only by mutual consent and with an explicit note in the publication.

AI tools for reviewers: reviewers must not upload the manuscript/fragments to external AI services without explicit editorial permission; limited local assistance for review-language clarity is allowed, but responsibility for content remains with the reviewer.

6) Conflicts of interest (COI)

Reviewers and editors must disclose any financial, academic, or personal ties (co-authorship within the last 3–5 years, shared affiliation, academic supervision, etc.). Where COI exists, another reviewer/editor is appointed. Authors disclose funding and potential COI in the accompanying documents.

7) Special cases

Data/code/materials: where applicable, availability/description is checked; a repository with a persistent identifier is recommended.

Image checks: originals may be requested; manipulations that change the meaning of the data are not permitted.

Chapters in edited volumes: assessed individually and for consistency with the overall volume concept.

8) For authors: how to prepare a response to reviews

Use a point-by-point structure: quote the comment → your response → where it was changed (page/section/figure).

Provide a tracked-changes file and a clean version.

If you disagree with a comment, justify it methodologically and/or with sources.

Consolidate repetitive changes across chapters to ensure consistent style/terminology.

9) For reviewers: recommended review structure

Brief summary (1–2 paragraphs): significance, originality, fit with the project.

Major comments: methodology, structure, data, figures, ethics.

Minor edits (by pages/sections).

Recommendation: Accept / Minor / Major / Reject.

Confidential notes to the editor (if needed).

A .docx template is available in the Reviewer Forms section.

10) Transparency and complaints/appeals

Complaints about process/timelines/conduct should be sent to policies@ess.press (project ID, dates, substance).

Appeals of decisions must be submitted within 30 days; they are reviewed by an independent editor/expert, with a written rationale provided.

Where violations are confirmed (plagiarism, data, COI), we act under the Publication Ethics Policy—from corrections to retraction.