Editorial Standards

Discovery evaluates scholarship through careful reading, appropriate expertise and reasons that can be explained.

Assess the work on its merits

A submission should be judged by its contribution, evidence or argument, methodological care and relationship to existing scholarship. Author identity, institutional prestige and the direction of a result are not substitutes for those qualities.

Respect disciplinary differences

Standards of evidence vary across experimental, observational, theoretical and interpretive work. Editors and reviewers should assess a manuscript in its scholarly context while requiring clarity about the question, approach and limits of the conclusions.

Keep decisions accountable

The handling editor considers reviewer advice and explains the basis of a decision. Review requests should identify questions that matter to the validity or clarity of the work. Conflicts of interest must be disclosed, and a person with a relevant conflict should not control the decision.

Protect confidential work

Manuscripts, author information and editorial correspondence are handled for the purpose of evaluation and publication. Access should be limited to people involved in the relevant task. Reviewers must respect the journal’s confidentiality requirements.

Maintain the record

Publication is not the end of editorial responsibility. Specific, evidence-supported concerns about an article warrant consideration, and material errors should be addressed through clear, linked notices.

Read the peer-review process and publication ethics policy for the procedures that put these principles into practice.