Peer Review

Discovery uses double-anonymous peer review to assess the quality, clarity and contribution of scholarly work. Authors and reviewers are not routinely told one another’s identities during review.

1. Editorial assessment

Editors first consider whether a submission falls within the journal’s scope and provides a sufficiently developed scholarly contribution. They assess its originality, presentation, research methods or reasoning, relevant ethical declarations and readiness for external review. A manuscript may be returned for clarification or declined at this stage. Submission does not guarantee external review or acceptance.

2. Preparing for anonymous review

Submit an anonymized main manuscript and a separate title page containing author names, affiliations and contact details. Remove identifying acknowledgements, file properties and tracked changes from files intended for reviewers. Cite your own work in the same neutral manner as other sources. Provide disclosures that identify the authors separately for the editorial office.

Editors have access to author information in order to manage the submission. Preprints, distinctive datasets, small research communities or other public information can make identities inferable; double-anonymous review cannot guarantee that neither party will recognize the work.

3. External evaluation

Reviewers are selected for expertise relevant to the manuscript and asked to disclose relationships or interests that could affect an impartial assessment. Their reports should address the research question, use of evidence, appropriateness of the methods or argument, interpretation, limitations and relationship to existing scholarship.

Reviewers should distinguish essential revisions from suggestions that would extend the work. Criticism must be specific, constructive and directed at the manuscript. Citation recommendations should have a clear scholarly justification. Reviewers advise the editors; they do not make the final publication decision.

4. Revision and decision

The editor considers the reports alongside the manuscript and may request revisions, seek further advice, accept the work or decline it. A revision should include a point-by-point response explaining the changes made and giving a reasoned response to any recommendation not followed. Revised submissions may be returned to reviewers. A request for revision is not a promise of acceptance.

Confidentiality and independence

Unpublished manuscripts and review correspondence are confidential. Reviewers must not use privileged findings for their own advantage or upload confidential material to external AI services. Anyone assisting with a review must be approved by the editor and observe the same confidentiality requirements.

Editors should step aside when an authorship, institutional, personal, financial or professional relationship could compromise their judgment. A submission involving an editor must be assigned to a handling editor without that conflict. Author reputation, institutional prestige and ability to pay are not grounds for acceptance.

Appeals

Authors may request reconsideration through the submission’s discussion area, identifying a specific factual error, procedural concern or substantive point that they believe was overlooked. An appeal should explain the concern respectfully and provide supporting evidence. It does not guarantee a different outcome. Concerns about research integrity are considered under the publication ethics policy.