HNCBT uses double-anonymous peer review: reviewers are not routinely given author identities, and reviewer identities are not routinely disclosed to authors. Editors retain access to the information needed to manage the submission.

Selection and assessment

Research and review manuscripts passing initial editorial assessment are sent to independent experts. The editor normally seeks at least two completed external assessments and may obtain additional methodological or statistical review. Any exceptional departure from the normal review arrangement must be justified and documented by the editorial leadership. Research articles are not accepted on administrative approval alone.

Reviewers are selected for relevant expertise and absence of material competing interests. Author suggestions may be considered but do not determine reviewer selection. Authors must not provide false reviewer identities or controlled email accounts. Reviewer exclusions should include a specific reason and are assessed by the editor.

Responsibilities of reviewers

• Assess the question, design, controls, statistical analysis, interpretation and reproducibility. Distinguish essential concerns from optional extensions.
• Consider ethics, registration, data and image integrity, and the applicable reporting checklist. Notify the editor confidentially of concerns.
• Provide constructive, specific comments supported by the manuscript or relevant evidence. Avoid coercive citation requests.
• Disclose conflicts, accept only reviews within suitable expertise and notify the editor if the agreed deadline cannot be met.
• Maintain confidentiality. Do not contact authors directly, use unpublished findings or upload submission material to external AI services.

A reviewer wishing to involve a colleague must obtain editorial permission first; the contributor must be identified to the editor and observe the same confidentiality and conflict rules. The journal’s policy is informed by COPE guidance for peer reviewers.

Anonymity and limitations

Authors should provide a separate title page and an anonymized manuscript. Preprints, specialized methods or publicly accessible datasets may make identities discoverable; anonymity cannot be guaranteed in every case. Reviewers should assess the work fairly and report any resulting conflict.

Decisions and revisions

Reviewers advise; the editor makes the decision by evaluating the reports and the evidence. Decisions may request revision, decline the article or accept it when requirements have been met. Conflicting reports may lead to an additional assessment. Revisions must include a point-by-point response and may undergo further review. Appeals follow Complaints & Appeals.

Annual issue and rolling publication

The journal publishes one annual issue, formally released on 15 December each year. Accepted articles are published online on a rolling basis after editorial acceptance, production and author proof checks. Authors do not have to wait until December for their completed article to appear online. Each article retains its online publication date when included in the annual issue.

The annual issue date is a publication schedule, not a submission deadline or a guarantee that a particular manuscript will be accepted or published by that date.

Editorial review targets

These are editorial service targets, not measured performance statistics or guaranteed deadlines. Reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, additional review and research-integrity checks may extend assessment. The revision target excludes the time authors spend preparing their response. A first decision may request revision or decline the manuscript; it is not necessarily an acceptance decision. The journal does not promise a fixed submission-to-acceptance interval.