EJSS uses double-blind peer review: reviewers do not receive author identities or affiliations, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. Authors must therefore submit an anonymised manuscript and a separate title page.

Editorial  screening

Every submission is first examined by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor. Screening considers:

• fit with the journal’s aims and scope;

• article type and scientific contribution;

• originality and relevance;

• research design, methods, statistics and reporting quality;

• ethical compliance and required declarations;

• language, organisation and adherence to author instructions; and

• text overlap, duplicate publication and other integrity concerns.

Manuscripts that are out of scope, insufficiently original, methodologically weak, incomplete, poorly prepared or ethically problematic may be declined without external review. A technical revision may be requested when potentially suitable work does not yet satisfy submission requirements.

EJSS uses similarity-detection software as one component of editorial screening. The journal normally expects an overall similarity score below 15% after references, tables and figures are excluded. Similarity percentages are not interpreted mechanically: editors examine the nature, location and source of overlap. Plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate publication and concealed redundancy may result in rejection regardless of the numerical score.

Reviewer selection

Manuscripts that pass screening are normally sent to at least two independent specialists. Reviewers are selected for relevant expertise, publication record, methodological competence and absence of conflicts of interest. Additional scientific or statistical review may be requested when needed.

Editors seek to avoid reviewers with recent close collaboration, current institutional connections, supervisory relationships, personal relationships, direct competition or other interests that could reasonably affect impartiality. Author-suggested reviewers may be considered only after independent verification; the journal is not obliged to use them.

Review criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess:

• novelty, significance and relevance;

• adequacy of hypotheses or research questions;

• experimental or sampling design, controls and replication;

• methodological transparency and reproducibility;

• appropriateness of statistical analysis;

• accuracy and completeness of results;

• quality of interpretation and engagement with relevant literature;

• consistency between data, conclusions and claims;

• presentation of tables, figures and references; and

• ethical, authorship, data and competing-interest concerns.

Reviews must be objective, evidence-based, constructive and confidential. Personal criticism is unacceptable. Reviewers must not use unpublished material or ideas for personal advantage and must disclose conflicts of interest promptly.

Editorial decisions

Following review, the handling editor evaluates the reports and the manuscript and makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept;

• Minor revision;

• Major revision; or

• Reject.

Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the decision. The editor may seek an additional opinion when reports conflict or when specialised assessment is required. The Editor-in-Chief has final responsibility for editorial decisions.

Revisions and appeals

For a revision, authors must submit a clean manuscript, a version with changes clearly marked, and a point-by-point response explaining how each comment was addressed. Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers. Failure to submit within the stated period without an approved extension may lead to closure of the submission.

Authors may appeal a rejection by providing a concise, evidence-based explanation of a substantial factual or procedural error. Disagreement with academic judgment alone is not sufficient. Appeals are considered by an editor who was not solely responsible for the original decision where practicable. The outcome of the appeal is final.

Editorial submissions

Manuscripts authored by an editor or Editorial Board member follow the same standards and are handled independently by an editor with no involvement in the work. The author-editor has no access to reviewer identities or editorial deliberations beyond the normal author interface.