Peer Review

Every research article published by Oak Academic Publishing is assessed by at least two independent expert reviewers under the oversight of a handling editor. This is the one part of our process we will not compress. A low article processing charge changes what we spend on production and overheads — it does not change the evidentiary standard a manuscript has to meet.

We use single-anonymised review as our house model: reviewers can see who the authors are, but reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, during the process or after publication.

1. Editorial desk check. The editorial office confirms the manuscript is in scope for the journal, is complete, and meets our research-integrity basics — including a similarity check. Submissions that fall outside scope are returned promptly rather than held, so authors can submit elsewhere without losing time.
2. Reviewer assignment. A handling editor with subject expertise invites independent reviewers. We do not proceed on a single review.
3. Review. Reviewers assess the work against the criteria in section 3 and submit a written report with a recommendation.
4. Decision. The handling editor weighs the reports — they are advice, not votes — and issues one of the decisions in section 4, with the reviewer comments passed to the authors.
5. Revision. Where revisions are required, authors respond point by point. Substantive revisions go back to the original reviewers wherever possible.
6. Acceptance. On acceptance the article moves to production — copyediting, typesetting, and proofing with the authors — and is then published open access under CC BY 4.0.

You can follow each of these stages for your own submission from My submissions.

Reviewers are asked to judge the work on its merits, specifically:

• Validity. Are the methods sound, appropriately applied, and described in enough detail to be repeated?
• Evidence. Do the data support the conclusions drawn, and are the limitations stated honestly?
• Originality and contribution. Does the work add something to the field, and is prior work properly credited?
• Clarity. Can a reader in the field follow the argument, the figures, and the analysis?
• Ethics and transparency. Are approvals, consent, data availability, funding, and competing interests declared as our publication ethics require?

Reviewers are explicitly asked not to weigh the perceived prestige of the authors or their institutions, nor to reject work solely for the standard of its English where the science is clear.

A handling editor returns one of four decisions:

• Accept — publishable as it stands.
• Minor revision — publishable once specific, limited points are addressed; usually checked by the editor alone.
• Major revision — the work may be publishable, but substantive changes or further evidence are needed, and the revision will be reviewed again.
• Reject — the work is not publishable in this journal. A rejection for scope alone is not a judgement on quality, and we will say so where that is the reason.

Every decision is accompanied by the reasoning behind it and the reviewer comments. We do not issue bare rejections.

Accepting a review invitation is an undertaking to:

• Treat the manuscript as confidential — it may not be shared, circulated, cited, or used for any other purpose, and it must not be uploaded to any tool that retains or trains on submitted content.
• Decline where a competing interest exists (see competing interests), including recent collaboration, shared affiliation, or a supervisory relationship with any author.
• Report within the agreed window, or tell the editor promptly if that is no longer possible — a late review is a cost borne by the author.
• Write constructively. Reports should give authors something they can act on, and should be worded so that we can pass them on unedited.
• Flag suspected plagiarism, image manipulation, duplicate submission, or undisclosed competing interests to the editor rather than addressing them in the report to the authors.

Attempting to manipulate peer review is among the most serious breaches we handle. This includes supplying fabricated or author-controlled reviewer contact details, impersonating a reviewer, approaching reviewers directly about a submission under consideration, and coordinated reviewing arrangements between author groups.

Confirmed manipulation results in rejection or retraction, referral to the authors’ institution, and may lead to a bar on future submissions. Suspected cases are investigated under the procedure in our publication ethics.

Authors may appeal a decision they believe rests on a factual error or a procedural failure. An appeal should identify the specific error and provide supporting evidence.

Appeals are considered by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision. Disagreement with a reviewer’s scientific judgement is not, by itself, grounds for appeal. The outcome of an appeal is final. Full detail is in editorial policies.

Our review capacity is what allows us to keep charges low without weakening standards, and we are always glad to hear from prospective reviewers. If you would like to review in your field, write to us with your area of expertise and a link to your publication record or ORCID.

inquiries@oakpub.com