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.
Reviewer role
Peer review supports editorial decision-making and contributes to the quality of the scholarly record. Reviewers are expected to evaluate submissions impartially and with due care. EP Journals Group publishes monthly; reviewers are therefore asked to submit reports within the agreed timeframe where feasible.
Reviewers should comment on originality, methodological adequacy, clarity, and the relevance of conclusions to the evidence presented. Reports should be sufficiently detailed to support an informed editorial decision.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts are confidential. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or use manuscript content for personal advantage. Where a reviewer believes specialist consultation is required, they should seek permission from the editorial office before involving another person.
Reviewers should not attempt to identify authors under the double-blind model. If author identity is discovered, reviewers should notify the editorial office.
Conflicts of interest
Reviewers should decline review where they have a conflict of interest, including recent collaboration, direct competition, institutional relationships, or financial interests. Where uncertainty exists, reviewers should disclose the relationship and seek editorial guidance.
Where a reviewer is unable to provide an objective report, the organisation prefers non-participation rather than compromised review.
Report tone and content
Reports should be professional, evidence-based, and focused on the work. Personal remarks are not acceptable. Where substantial concerns exist, reviewers should explain concerns clearly and indicate what evidence supports the concern.
Reviewers may suggest additional references where appropriate; however, citation suggestions should not be used to inflate citations. Recommendations should be tied to scholarly necessity.
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