The following document constitutes a formal policy of EP Journals Group. It is intended to be read together with related policies and guidance notes published by the organisation. This policy applies to all journals under the EP Journals Group imprint and is implemented across the organisation on a continuing basis.
Publication frequency across the portfolio is monthly. Where timelines are referenced, they are stated as typical timeframes and may vary by discipline, submission volume, and the requirements of the peer review process. The organisation retains the right to apply additional checks where warranted by a specific case.
Review model
EP Journals Group applies a double-blind peer review model as the default standard for all journals, unless a journal states a discipline-specific variation on its journal website. Under the double-blind model, author and reviewer identities are withheld from one another during the evaluation process.
The peer review process supports editorial decision-making. Peer review does not guarantee correctness; it is a structured assessment aimed at evaluating scholarly merit, methodological adequacy, and contribution to the field.
Stages of review
Upon receipt, submissions may be screened for scope alignment and basic compliance with author guidelines. Submissions may be returned to authors for technical correction prior to formal review. Manuscripts suitable for peer review are assigned to reviewers selected for subject expertise.
As a general standard, a minimum of two independent reviewer reports are sought. Where reports materially conflict, additional reports may be requested. Editorial decisions are informed by reports and by editorial assessment of the manuscript.
Timelines and monthly publication cycle
The portfolio follows a monthly publication frequency. Typical review timelines are described as operational targets and may vary. Where revisions are required, the total processing time may extend beyond a single month. The monthly publication schedule refers to issue cadence and publishing capacity, not to a guaranteed acceptance timeline.
Where delays occur due to reviewer availability or complex integrity checks, authors may be informed. Review is conducted as a scholarly process rather than as a time-bound service.
Confidentiality and reviewer conduct
Reviewers are expected to treat manuscripts as confidential documents and to refrain from using unpublished material for personal advantage. Reviewers should declare conflicts of interest and decline review where impartiality cannot be maintained.
Reviewer reports should be written in a professional tone. Criticism should be evidence-based and focused on the work rather than the author. Where inappropriate language is used, the editorial office may redact material before forwarding reports.
Policy enquiries
Enquiries regarding interpretation or application of this policy may be directed to the editorial office. Correspondence should identify the relevant journal (if applicable), the manuscript or article identifier (if applicable), and a concise description of the issue.
Email: editor@ep-journals.org