Peer Review Policy

Purpose and Scope

The SDEWES Journals Peer Review Policy sets out the principles and procedures for the peer review of manuscripts submitted to journals published by SDEWES Centre. The policy applies to Editors-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Guest Editors, Editorial Board members, reviewers, authors and SDEWES Centre as publisher.

This policy applies to all manuscripts subject to editorial assessment or peer review, including regular articles, review articles, special issue papers, article collections, conference-linked submissions and supplementary materials. It also applies to reviewer invitations, review reports, author responses, editorial correspondence and other peer-review records.

Related guidance, statement templates, declaration forms and checklists relevant to this policy are listed in Appendix A: Related COPE and International Guidance and Appendix B: Practical Forms, Statements and Checklists.

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review supports editorial decision-making by providing independent expert assessment of the quality, validity, originality, relevance and clarity of submitted manuscripts. Peer review also helps authors improve their work and supports the integrity, reliability and transparency of the scholarly record.

Reviewers provide independent expert advice and recommendations, but they do not make the editorial decision. Final responsibility remains with the Editor-in-Chief or another editor authorised by the journal, in accordance with Editorial Independence. Editorial decisions take account of the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, the journal’s aims and scope and applicable journal requirements.

Peer Review Model

Each SDEWES journal shall clearly state its peer-review model on the journal website. The journal-level description must identify whether the review is single-blind, double-blind, open or conducted under another clearly defined model, and must explain how reviewer and author identities are handled.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally assessed by at least two independent expert reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited where the subject matter, methodology, conflicting recommendations, ethical concerns or other circumstances require further expertise. A different process may apply to a particular article type only where this is clearly stated by the relevant journal.

Reviewer and author identities must be protected or disclosed consistently with the peer-review model stated by the relevant journal and with Privacy.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All submissions are first assessed by the editors to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for peer review. This initial assessment may consider:

• relevance to the journal’s aims and scope; 
• article type and suitability for the journal; 
• basic scientific quality and originality; 
• clarity, completeness and presentation; 
• compliance with author instructions; 
• ethical and research integrity requirements; 
• possible plagiarism, duplicate publication or other misconduct concerns; 
• completeness of required declarations. 

A manuscript may be rejected before external peer review if it falls outside the journal’s aims and scope, does not meet basic requirements concerning scientific quality, originality, presentation or submission, or is otherwise unsuitable for external review. Initial editorial rejection must be based on editorial and scientific considerations and must comply with Editorial Independence.

Where possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, false declarations, research-ethics non-compliance or another integrity concern is identified, editorial handling may be paused while the concern is assessed under Publishing Ethics and one or more relevant specialised SDEWES Journals Policies. The existence of an unverified allegation should not by itself be treated as confirmed misconduct.

Reviewer Selection

Editors are responsible for selecting reviewers with appropriate subject, methodological or interdisciplinary expertise, independence and availability. Reviewer recommendations provided by authors, Editorial Board members, Guest Editors or other reviewers may be considered, but the responsible editor retains full control over reviewer selection.

Editors should take reasonable steps to verify the reviewer’s identity, affiliation, expertise and contact information. Reviewer selection should not rely solely on unverified contact details supplied by an author or another interested party.

Editors must not knowingly invite reviewers who have an actual, potential or perceived competing interest that could compromise, or could reasonably appear to compromise, an objective assessment. Reviewer selection and competing-interest management must comply with Competing Interests and Funding Disclosure and, where editorial-role holders are involved, Editorial Independence.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers support editors by providing an objective, constructive, respectful, timely and evidence-based assessment. Reviewer comments should include clear reasons and sufficient detail to help editors make informed decisions and authors improve their work.

Reviewers should assess, where relevant:

• originality and contribution to the field; 
• methodological soundness; 
• validity and interpretation of results; 
• adequacy of references and relation to previous work; 
• clarity, structure and presentation; 
• adequacy of figures, tables, data, models or supplementary material; 
• ethical and research integrity concerns; 
• suitability for the journal. 

Reviewers should decline an invitation if they lack the required expertise, cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe or have an actual, potential or perceived competing interest. Reviewers must inform the editor promptly if such a matter becomes apparent after accepting the invitation.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly concerning the manuscript, delegate the review to another person or involve a colleague, student or trainee without prior permission from the journal. Any approved co-reviewer must be identified to the journal and must comply with the same confidentiality, competing-interest and ethical requirements.

Reviewers must not request citation of their own work or the work of associates for personal advantage, citation enhancement or another inappropriate purpose. Suggested citations must be relevant and supported by a clear scholarly reason.

Suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate manipulation, authorship concerns or other possible misconduct should be reported confidentially to the editor. Reviewers should not contact authors, institutions or third parties or attempt to conduct their own investigation.

Reviewers should also follow the practical instructions provided in the relevant journal-level Guide for Reviewers.

Editors may remove or withhold material from a review report where necessary to address abusive, discriminatory or defamatory language, unnecessary personal information, disclosure of reviewer identity contrary to the journal’s peer-review model, confidential information, inappropriate citation requests or other content that breaches journal policy. Substantive changes should, where practicable, be discussed with or communicated to the reviewer, and the reviewer’s scholarly position must not be misrepresented.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts, supplementary materials, review reports, reviewer identities, author responses, editorial correspondence and editorial deliberations are confidential unless disclosure is authorised by the journal’s stated peer-review model or is otherwise required for a legitimate editorial, ethics or legal purpose.

Reviewers, editors, Guest Editors and Editorial Board members must not share, discuss, copy, distribute or use submitted material outside the authorised editorial and peer-review process. Unpublished information must not be used for personal, professional, academic, financial or competitive advantage.

Manuscript files and review records must be handled securely. Downloaded material should not be retained or shared longer than necessary for the authorised review or editorial purpose.

Confidentiality, reviewer-identity protection and personal-data handling must comply with Privacy. The practical confidentiality and file-handling checks are provided in Appendix B.

Competing Interests in Peer Review

Editors, reviewers, Guest Editors and Editorial Board members involved in manuscript handling must declare any actual, potential or perceived competing interest that could affect, or could reasonably appear to affect, the independence, objectivity or fairness of peer review.

Relevant interests may arise from recent collaboration, shared institutional affiliation, supervisory or student relationships, close personal or professional relationships, financial interests, direct academic or commercial competition, involvement in the same project or consortium, or another relationship that could compromise independent judgement.

A reviewer with a relevant competing interest should decline the invitation or inform the editor immediately. An editor or other editorial-role holder with a competing interest must be excluded from reviewer selection, review assessment, recommendations and decision-making, and the manuscript must be reassigned where necessary.

The disclosure and management of competing interests are governed by Competing Interests and Funding Disclosure. Independent editorial handling is governed by Editorial Independence.

Integrity of the Peer-Review Process

SDEWES journals do not tolerate manipulation or attempted manipulation of peer review. Prohibited conduct includes fabricated reviewer identities, false or misleading reviewer contact information, reviewer impersonation, undisclosed involvement of another person in preparing a review, inappropriate coordination between authors and reviewers, attempts to influence reviewer selection improperly, submission of fraudulent review reports or other interference with the independence and integrity of the review process.

Authors must not contact reviewers or attempt to identify reviewers whose identities are confidential under the journal’s peer-review model. Reviewers must not contact authors directly without authorisation from the journal.

Where peer-review manipulation is suspected, the journal may verify reviewer identities and contact details, preserve relevant records, pause editorial handling, request clarification and assess whether other manuscripts or reviews may be affected. The matter should be assessed under Publishing Ethics, with confidentiality and personal data protected under Privacy.

Where manipulation is confirmed or remains a serious unresolved concern, the journal may reject the manuscript, discontinue the review, replace reviewers, correct the editorial record or consider post-publication action under Corrections, Retractions and Withdrawals, depending on the stage and circumstances of the case.

Use of Generative AI in Peer Review

Reviewers, editors and Guest Editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, supplementary materials, review reports, author responses, reviewer identities or confidential editorial information to public or non-approved generative AI or AI-assisted tools.

Any permitted use of an approved tool must protect confidentiality, privacy, copyright, intellectual property and data-protection requirements. Peer review must not be delegated to generative AI or AI-assisted technologies. Reviewers and editors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, reasoning, independence and integrity of the review or editorial assessment.

Detailed requirements concerning the use of such technologies are set out in Generative AI Policy, while the handling of personal data and confidential records is governed by Privacy.

Editorial Decision-Making

Peer review informs but does not determine the editorial decision. Reviewers provide recommendations, while the Editor-in-Chief or another editor authorised by the journal remains responsible for evaluating the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses and applicable journal requirements.

Depending on the journal’s procedures, editorial outcomes may include:

• rejection before external review; 
• rejection after external review; 
• request for minor revision; 
• request for major revision; 
• invitation to resubmit as a new manuscript, where applicable; or 
• acceptance. 

Editors are not required to follow the majority reviewer recommendation. Where reports differ, the editor should assess the quality, relevance and strength of the arguments and may seek additional review where necessary.

Editorial decisions must be made independently and in accordance with Editorial Independence. Suspected ethical or integrity concerns identified during decision-making must be assessed under Publishing Ethics and one or more applicable specialised SDEWES Journals Policies.

Revisions and Further Review

When revision is requested, authors should provide a clear point-by-point response explaining how each editor and reviewer comment has been addressed or, where a suggestion has not been followed, the reasons for that decision.

A revised manuscript may be assessed by the responsible editor, returned to one or more original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers where further expertise is needed. The editor is not required to return every revised manuscript to the original reviewers.

Reviewers assessing a revision should focus on whether the relevant concerns have been adequately addressed. New requests should normally be limited to matters arising from the revision or to significant issues that could not reasonably have been identified in the initial review.

A revision request does not guarantee acceptance. Final acceptance depends on whether the manuscript meets the journal’s scientific, ethical and editorial requirements.

Special Issues, Article Collections and Conference-Linked Submissions

Special issues, article collections and conference-linked submissions must follow the same reviewer-selection, confidentiality, competing-interest and review-quality standards as regular submissions.

Guest Editors may identify or recommend reviewers and assess reports where authorised by the journal, but they must not handle a manuscript where they have an actual, potential or perceived competing interest. They must not guarantee acceptance or override independent editorial assessment.

Final responsibility for the editorial decision remains with the Editor-in-Chief or another editor authorised by the journal. Independent handling and the separation of conference, sponsorship and editorial interests are governed by Editorial Independence, while competing interests are governed by Competing Interests and Funding Disclosure.

Peer-Review Concerns, Appeals and Complaints

Concerns about reviewer conduct, confidentiality, reviewer identity, competing interests, inappropriate citation requests, unauthorised delegation, unfair treatment, suspected peer-review manipulation or failure to follow the stated review procedure may be raised with the journal.

Peer-review conduct and integrity concerns may be assessed under this policy and Publishing Ethics. Privacy or reviewer-identity concerns are also assessed under Privacy, and competing-interest concerns under Competing Interests and Funding Disclosure.

Formal appeals against editorial decisions and complaints about editorial or peer-review handling are submitted and assessed under Editorial Decision Appeals and Complaints.

Review Records and Transparency

SDEWES journals retain reviewer invitations, reviewer responses, review reports, editorial assessments, decisions, author responses and related correspondence where necessary for editorial administration, quality assurance, appeals, complaints, publication-ethics assessment and protection of the scholarly record.

Access to peer-review records must be limited to individuals who require it for an authorised journal purpose. Records must be protected against unauthorised access, alteration, loss or disclosure and handled in accordance with Privacy.

Retention of review records does not authorise public disclosure of reviewer identities, confidential reports or editorial deliberations unless disclosure is permitted by the journal’s stated peer-review model, authorised by the relevant person or required for a legitimate editorial, ethical or legal purpose.

Policy Review and Updates

SDEWES Centre may review and update this policy periodically to reflect developments in peer-review practice, publication ethics, open science, research integrity, editorial practice, legal requirements and international standards.

Updated policies apply from the date of publication on the SDEWES Journals Policies website unless otherwise stated.

Appendix A. Related COPE and International Guidance

COPE Council. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Provides essential principles for accepting review assignments, declaring competing interests, maintaining confidentiality, involving other persons, preparing constructive reports and responding to suspected misconduct.

COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics – Peer review manipulation suspected during the peer review process

Provides a step-by-step process where reviewer identities, contact details, recommendations or other aspects of peer review may have been fabricated or manipulated.

COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics – Reviewer suspected to have appropriated an author’s ideas or data

Provides guidance where an author alleges that a reviewer has used or appropriated confidential ideas, data or other unpublished material obtained through peer review.

COPE Council. Editing or suppressing peer review reports

Provides guidance on when editors may edit, withhold or suppress reviewer comments and on the need to avoid misrepresenting the reviewer’s scholarly assessment.

Appendix B. Practical Forms, Statements and Checklists

The documents below provide practical support for confidentiality, independent reviewer and editor handling, and initial assessment of possible peer-review integrity concerns. More detailed forms and checklists are listed in the appendices to the relevant specialised SDEWES Journals Policies.

Peer Review Confidentiality and Privacy Checklist

Internal editor, reviewer and editorial-office checklist – Used to support confidential and secure handling of manuscripts, reviewer identities, review reports, editorial correspondence, downloaded files, external tools and generative AI during peer review.

Editor, Guest Editor and Editorial Board Competing Interest Checklist

Internal editor checklist – Used where an editorial-role holder has a competing interest, is an author of the manuscript or must be excluded from reviewer selection, review assessment or decision-making.

Publishing Ethics Concern Initial Assessment and Policy-Routing Checklist for Editors

Internal editor and publisher checklist – Used where suspected reviewer misconduct, peer-review manipulation, confidentiality breach, false reviewer identity or another peer-review integrity concern must be recorded and routed under this policy, Publishing Ethics, Privacy, Competing Interests and Funding Disclosure or another applicable policy.