Peer review policy

The EJG operates a rigorous and transparent peer review process that aims to maximize quality; it is handled by researchers and scholars.

We believe that peer review should be efficient, rigorous, and fair for everyone involved.

For the EJG, peer review is a double-blind assessment with at least two independent reviewers, followed by a final acceptance/rejection decision by the Editor-in-Chief or another academic editor approved by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process, including acceptance decisions; and the approval of external editors, such as Special Issues; and appointing new Editorial Board members.


The pre-screening stage consists of the following main steps: a technical pre-check and plagiarism check performed by the Editorial Office and an editorial pre-check performed by an academic editor.

Immediately after submission, the journal’s staff will perform the technical pre-check to assess:

The academic editor (i.e., the Editor-in-Chief in the case of regular submissions, the Guest Editor in the case of Special Issue submissions, and an Editorial Board member in the case of a conflict of interest and regular submissions if the Editor-in-Chief allows) will be notified of the submission and invited to perform an editorial pre-check. During the editorial pre-check phase, the academic editor will assess the suitability of the submission with respect to the scope of the journal, as well as the overall scientific soundness of the manuscript, including the relevance of the references and the correctness of the applied methodology. The academic editors can decide to reject the manuscript, request revisions before peer review, or continue with the peer review process and recommend suitable reviewers.

Guest Editors of Special Issues are not able to make decisions regarding their own manuscripts submitted to their Special Issue, as this would constitute a conflict of interest. An Editorial Board member will instead be responsible for decision making. The Guest Editor will be unable to access the review process except in their role as author. Similarly, Editors-in-Chief or other Editorial Board members are not able to access the review process of their manuscript except in their role as author.

Peer Review

From submission to final decision or publication, one dedicated EJG staff member coordinates the review process and serves as the main point of contact for authors, academic editors, and reviewers.

The process is double-blind, meaning that the author does not know the identity of the reviewer and the reviewer is unaware of the author’s identity.

At least two review reports are collected for each submitted article. The academic editor can suggest reviewers during pre-check. Alternatively, EJG editorial staff will use qualified Editorial Board members, qualified reviewers from our database, or new reviewers identified by web searches for related articles.

Authors can recommend potential reviewers. EJG staff ensure that there are no potential conflicts of interest and will not consider those with competing interests. Authors can also enter the names of potential peer reviewers they wish to exclude from consideration in the peer review of their manuscript, during the initial submission of the manuscript. The Editorial Team will respect these requests as long as they do not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of the submission.

The following criteria are applied to all reviewers:

Reviewers who are accepted to review a manuscript are expected to:

Reviewers who accept a review invitation are provided 15–30 days to write their review via our online platform. Extensions can be granted on request.

When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide their report within two weeks. Extensions can also be granted on request.

To assist academic editors, the EJG staff handle all communication with reviewers, authors, and the external editor. Academic editors can check the status of manuscripts and the identity of reviewers at any time, and are able to discuss manuscript review at any stage with EJG staff.


In cases where only minor or major revisions are recommended, EJG staff will request that the author revise the paper before referring to the academic editor. Where conflicting review reports are present, or where there are one or more recommendations for rejection, feedback from the academic editor is sought before a decision about revisions is communicated to the authors. Additional reviewers or further review reports may be requested by the academic editors at this stage.

Revised versions of manuscripts may or may not be sent to reviewers, depending on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version. By default, reviewers who request major revisions or recommend rejection will be sent the revised manuscript. All reviewers can access the most recent version of the manuscript via the website.

A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript are normally provided. If more rounds are required according to the reviewers, EJG staff should request a decision from the academic editor.

If the required revision time is estimated to be longer than 2 months, we recommend that authors withdraw their manuscript before resubmitting so as to avoid unnecessary time pressure and to ensure that all manuscripts are sufficiently revised.

Editor Decision

Acceptance decisions on manuscripts can be made by the academic editor after peer review once a minimum of two review reports have been received. Acceptance decisions are made by an academic editor (the Editor-in-Chief, a Guest Editor or another suitable Editorial Board member). Guest Editors are not able to make decisions on their own papers which will instead be assigned to a suitable Editorial Board member. When making a decision, we expect the academic editor to check the following:

The academic editor can select from the following options: accept in its current form, accept with minor revisions, reject and decline resubmission, reject but encourage resubmission, ask the author for a revision, or ask for an additional reviewer.

The academic editors should alert the Editorial Office to any potential conflicts of interest that may bias, or be perceived to bias, decision making.

Reviewers make recommendations, and the Editors-in-Chief or academic editors are free to disagree with their views. If they do so, they should justify their decision for the benefit of the authors and reviewers.

In some instances, an academic editor supports a decision of manuscript acceptance despite a reviewer recommendation to reject. EJG staff will seek a second independent opinion (double decision) from an Editorial Board member or the Editor-in-Chief before communicating a final decision to the authors. The double decision, provided by an Editorial Board Member or the Editor-in-Chief, is the final decision.

Articles can only be accepted for publication by an academic editor. EJG staff then inform the authors. EJG staff never make paper acceptance decisions.

EJG staff or Editorial Board members (including Editors-in-Chief) are not involved in the processing of their own academic work. Their submissions are assigned and revised by at least two independent reviewers. Decisions are made by other Editorial Board members who do not have a conflict of interest with the authors.

We aim to publish only manuscripts that are scientifically correct, and we do not artificially increase journal rejection rates, allowing the wider reader community to define the impact.


EJG’s in-house teams perform production on all manuscripts. In the small number of cases where extensive editing or formatting is required, the authors are requested to use professional English editing services, or consult a native English-speaking colleague—the latter being our preferred option.