Research and review articles undergo double-anonymous external peer review: author identities are withheld from reviewers and reviewer identities are withheld from authors during assessment.

Review model and its limits

Authors submit a separate title page and an anonymized manuscript. Editors may know author identities to administer the submission and manage conflicts. Anonymity cannot be guaranteed where a preprint, distinctive project, public presentation or small research community makes identification possible; authors should disclose relevant prior dissemination.

Initial screening may result in rejection without external review. Editorials or other editorial material may receive a different form of assessment and should be identified accordingly. Special-issue research articles follow the same external review requirements as regular research articles.

Reviewer selection and conduct

Reviewers are selected for relevant expertise and the ability to provide independent assessment. They must disclose competing interests, decline when a conflict prevents impartial review, and keep submissions confidential. Suggested reviewers may be considered but are not binding on the editor. Authors should explain any justified reviewer exclusion request.

Review reports should evaluate the question, contribution, design, evidence, interpretation and reporting. Criticism should be specific and constructive. Reviewers must not demand citations for personal advantage, appropriate unpublished ideas or involve another person without editorial permission.

Decisions and revisions

The editor considers reviewer advice and is responsible for the decision. Conflicting reports may require further assessment. Authors should provide a point-by-point response to revision requests, explain changes and justify any disagreement. A revision invitation is not a promise of acceptance.

Reviews involving an editor’s own work or a significant personal, professional or institutional relationship must be managed independently. See Competing Interests. Decision times vary with reviewer availability and the complexity of the submission; no fixed completion date is guaranteed.

Confidential tools and appeals

Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or reports to external AI tools without an authorized confidentiality arrangement. Responsibility for assessment remains with the human reviewer and editor. The AI Use Policy provides further requirements. A reasoned appeal may be submitted under 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.

Updated 5 October 2026 · Questions: JPOII Editorial Office