Peer Review Policy

The Journal uses a double-blind peer-review process to ensure the highest standards of scientific integrity, methodological rigor, and ethical compliance. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review. All submissions are screened for plagiarism.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial check by the publishing house, Sunrise Settings Ltd, to make sure that all files have been uploaded in the correct format and that they are anonymized, allowing for a double-blinded process. If any problems are identified, the authors are requested to upload new updated files. The manuscript is then evaluated by an Associate Editor to determine whether the manuscript fits the scope of the journal, meets basic scientific and ethical standards, and is suitable to be sent for peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to authors without external review.

Editorial and peer review evaluation

Manuscripts deemed suitable for further review are sent to two or more independent expert reviewers. The reviewers could either be identified by the Associate editor, or by the reviewer selection team at Sunrise Settings. The reviewers are tasked with highlighting the manuscript's general and specific merits and shortcomings, methodological quality, clarity, relevance, and contribution to the field, and ethical and reporting standards.

In parallel, the manuscript is also assessed by the Journal's Scientific Quality Editor, who evaluates formal requirements, research integrity, ethical compliance, potential biases, and adherence to reporting guidelines. Furthermore, JEVTM’s publishing house, Sunrise Setting Ltd, checks the manuscript for plagiarism.

The scientific editorial technical team, including the Editor-in-Chief, the Scientific Quality Editor, and designated senior editorial staff, supports quality control across all submissions and may identify concerns requiring additional clarification or revision.

The typical review process is expected to take 4-6 weeks, though timelines may vary.

Editorial decision

After all reviews are received, the handling editor synthesizes feedback and makes a recommendation to a) accept the manuscript for publication b) ask the author to revise the manuscript or c) reject the manuscript. All final editorial decisions are approved by the Editor-in-Chief, who holds ultimate responsibility for the scientific and ethical integrity of published content.

Conflict of interest due to internal submissions from the editorial team

In cases where a manuscript’s author is in some way associated with the editorial team, they are excluded from all editorial handling of that manuscript. An independent editor is assigned to manage the peer-review process. The author's affiliation with the Journal will also be disclosed in the final publication of the article under the heading “Conflict of Interest”.

Previously published submissions

The Journal accepts manuscripts that have been previously shared as preliminary versions, on personal or institutional websites, presented at conferences, or posted in informal communications. However, authors must retain copyright for all submitted material. Authors also accept that the Journal's editors cannot guarantee full anonymity in the review process, even if the author anonymizes the manuscript when earlier versions of the manuscript have been made available.

Reviewer Selection

• Reviewers must have appropriate subject-matter expertise and no conflicts of interest with the authors.
• Reviewers must not be close colleagues, collaborators, family members, or members of the same research group as any of the authors.
• Reviewers should accept assignments only within their area of competence.
• Reviewers should respond to invitations promptly and submit completed reviews within a reasonable timeframe.
• Reviewer comments must remain scientific, respectful, and unbiased. They should not be influenced by the author's nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or commercial interests.
• Reviewer comments must not contain hostile or provocative language, personal criticism, slander or any other derogatory comments.
• Confidentiality of the manuscript must be maintained at all times.

COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS POLICY

Decisions made by the Editor-in-Chief must be considered final. Rejected manuscripts will not be reconsidered for publication unless there is sufficient cause. Authors may request reconsideration in cases where:

• A clerical, administrative, or procedural error is believed to have affected the decision.
• Substantial new data have been added that materially change the manuscript.

Formal complaints, disputes, or appeals must be directed to the Editor-in-Chief directly (tal.horer@regionorebrolan.se). The Editor-in-Chief ensures that all concerns are reviewed through a fair, thorough, and unbiased process. The Journal follows COPE recommendations when handling disputes or concerns related to peer review, ethics, or editorial decisions.