For reviewers

EWA Publishing supports its reviewers by providing clear guidelines and resources to uphold ethical standards and review quality. Editors, reviewers, and authors are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the specific policies of the series.

This policy is crafted to reflect EWA Publishing’s dedication to the advancement of knowledge through ethical and transparent peer-review practices, supporting our reviewers, authors, and editors in contributing to the integrity of the scholarly record.

Reviewers' responsibilities

Objectivity and confidentiality

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and without bias. They must keep the contents of the manuscripts confidential and not use the information for personal gain or disclose it to others.

Timeliness and thoroughness

Reviews should be completed in a timely manner and provide comprehensive and constructive feedback to assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could compromise their ability to provide an impartial review.

Identity

Reviewers must be experts in their respective fields, capable of providing unbiased and objective evaluations of manuscripts. To maintain impartiality and prevent conflicts of interest, reviewers should not be:

• Affiliated with the same institution as any of the manuscript's co-authors
• Associated with the funding body of the manuscript under review
• Identified through personal email accounts (e.g., Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail) if an institutional affiliation cannot be confirmed through a basic verification process (involving a search of the reviewer's name, department, and institution)

EWA Publishing enables authors to recommend or oppose specific reviewers at the time of submission, balancing author preferences with editorial discretion.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts assigned for review are to be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose any information about the manuscript or its review process to third parties or contact the authors directly without explicit authorization from the editor.

While collaborative discussions and co-reviewing practices are acknowledged, reviewers must obtain prior approval from the editor to ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that all contributors are appropriately recognized.

Any unpublished data or ideas disclosed within a manuscript must remain confidential and cannot be used for the reviewer's personal research without the author's written permission. Reviewers are entrusted to safeguard the confidentiality and proprietary information encountered during the review process.

Conflict of interest

Submissions by Editors or Editorial Board members are subject to the same rigorous review process, managed by alternative members of the Board to eliminate any potential conflict of interest. The involved Editor/Board member will abstain from any decision-making related to their submission.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted with objectivity and professionalism. Reviewers must be mindful of personal biases and ensure they do not influence the review outcome. Personal criticism of the authors is deemed unprofessional and unacceptable. Feedback should be constructive, with clear articulation and substantiation of any points of critique.

When recommending citations of their own or associates' work, reviewers must ensure that such recommendations are strictly for the purpose of enhancing the manuscript's scientific merit. The intent must not be to increase personal citation counts or to unduly elevate the visibility of their or their associates' work.

Reviewers consent to the potential transfer of manuscripts and their reviews within EWA Publishing's network to align with series themes or when a manuscript may find a more suitable publication venue. This includes transferring reviewer details to ensure continuity and efficiency in the review process. EWA Publishing adheres to COPE’s Core Practices, ensuring transparency and ethical standards are maintained during transfers and across all publishing activities.

Peer Review Policy

Policy Overview

To ensure the academic rigor, originality, and high quality of research findings published in the journals under our press, all submitted research articles, reviews, and most other article types must undergo a rigorous and impartial peer review process. Our press primarily adopts the single-blind peer review model (where reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, but authors remain anonymous to reviewers). Certain specific journals may employ a double-blind peer review model (where both parties' identities are concealed until publication), as detailed in the respective journal's guidelines.

The core objective is to select manuscripts demonstrating significant academic value, innovation, and scientific reliability through independent expert assessment, while providing authors with constructive feedback for improvement.

Peer Review Process Steps

The entire review process follows a standardized procedure, as outlined below:

Step 1: Initial Editorial Office Check

Upon submission, the Editorial Office conducts an initial screening, which includes:

• Format and Scope: Verifying that the manuscript complies with the journal's formatting requirements, academic standards, and scope.
• Originality Check: Screening for academic misconduct using professional anti-plagiarism software, with a defined similarity threshold (e.g., typically not exceeding 25%).
• Completeness: Confirming that all necessary materials (such as figures, tables, data, etc.) are complete.

Manuscripts failing the initial check will be returned or rejected directly.

Step 2: Assessment by Academic Editor

Manuscripts passing the initial check are assigned to an Academic Editor (typically the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Editorial Board member) in the relevant field. The Academic Editor assesses the manuscript's overall academic potential, novelty, and alignment with the journal's aims, and decides whether to proceed with peer review. Should the Academic Editor have any potential conflicts of interest regarding the manuscript, handling will be transferred to another editor without conflicts.

Step 3: Peer Review Execution

The Academic Editor is responsible for inviting at least two independent experts in the field to review the manuscript. Review criteria include:

• Novelty and Academic Significance: Whether the study provides new knowledge or insights.
• Methodology and Scientific Rigor: The appropriateness of the experimental design, the validity and sufficiency of the data, and the soundness of the analysis.
• Results and Conclusions: Whether the conclusions are fully supported by the data.
• Presentation and Structure: The clarity of the narrative, logical coherence, and adherence to language standards.

Step 4: Editorial Decision and Author Communication

The Academic Editor synthesizes all reviewer comments to reach a final decision, which is communicated to the corresponding author via the submission system. Decision types include:

• Acceptance without Revision: The manuscript is accepted for publication as is (rare).
• Acceptance after Minor Revisions: Requires minor, non-critical revisions.
• Reconsideration after Major Revisions: Requires significant or substantial revisions. The revised manuscript will typically be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
• Rejection: The manuscript has fundamental flaws and does not meet the journal's publication standards.

Step 5: Revision and Re-review

For manuscripts requiring revision, authors must submit a revised version within the stipulated timeframe, accompanied by a detailed point-by-point response letter addressing all comments and suggestions raised by the reviewers. All changes made in the manuscript should be clearly highlighted. The revised manuscript and responses will be assessed by the Academic Editor and, if necessary, the original reviewers until it meets the acceptance criteria.

Privacy Policy

This Privacy Policy (hereinafter “Policy”) applies to the reviewer platform (hereinafter “Platform”) operated by EWA Publishing (hereinafter “Publisher”), it explains how Publisher collects, uses reviewers’ personal information when they use Platform, and the rights they have in relation to their data.

Collection and Uses of Personal Information

• The information collected by Publisher is from publicly available sources (e.g., academic databases, institutional websites, publications), and is personal data that the reviewers have voluntarily made public or that is otherwise lawfully disclosed. Publisher processes such data within a reasonable scope.
• All the information (name, affiliation, email address, academic title, etc.) of reviewers will be used solely for reviewer management, manuscript assignment, peer review processes, and necessary platform operations.
• Personal information will not be over-collected. The Publisher collects only the information necessary to achieve the purposes mentioned above.
• The information mentioned above may be shared with journal editors, manuscript authors (after anonymisation) for the purposes of reviewer management and peer review administration.
• If a manuscript is transferred internally between EWA Publishing journals, the review records may be shared internally.
• The information collected by Publisher will not be sold to any third parties, and will not be used for any commercial activity unless obtained the reviewer’s separate explicit consent.

Data Security and Retention Periods

The personal data will be protected by the Publisher:

• Regular security assessments and system updates
• Collection of information on a minimum-necessary basis
• Only employees with a genuine need to know the personal information for their duties are granted access.
• In non-essential scenarios such as statistical analysis and system testing, personal information is masked or anonymised.

Information’s Retention periods:

• Reviewer’s information: retained for as long as it is needed for the purposes set out in this Policy, or until the reviewer requests its deletion.
• Review records: retained in accordance with academic publishing standards to maintain scholarly records and auditability.
• Review records for published articles will be permanently anonymised and archived.

Policy for Review Invitation

As the peer review invitations are generally sent to reviewers by email, the Publisher hereby declares that such invitations will NOT:

• require any payment;
• request bank account or payment account details;
• provide or require to download or register any app or remote-control software;
• require screen sharing;
• request photographs or copies of personal identification documents such as ID cards or passports;
• request account numbers, passwords, or verification codes for any platform or account;
• ask reviewers to complete review work via personal social media accounts.
• The links provided and the review pages are located on designated official domains.

If reviewers encounter any of the above circumstances in a review invitation they receive, it may indicate a scam email. To protect your privacy and financial security, please be vigilant about the source of the invitation, and contact us to verify the situation. If necessary, report it to the relevant authorities or take legal action.

Your Rights

Under applicable data protection laws, the reviewer has the following rights:

• Right of access – to inquire about the personal data about them which is held by the Publisher.
• Right to rectification – to request correction of inaccurate or incomplete personal information.
• Right to erasure ("right to be forgotten") – to request deletion of their personal data under certain conditions.
• Right to restriction of processing – to request restriction of processing of their data under certain conditions.
• Right to data portability – to request that their data be transferred in a structured format to another party.
• Right to object – to object to processing based on our legitimate interests.
• Right to withdraw consent – to withdraw any consent they have previously given (without affecting the lawfulness of processing based on consent before its withdrawal).
• Right to lodge a complaint – to lodge a complaint with the relevant data protection supervisory authority.

Policy Updates

This Policy will be updated time to time. Updated versions will be:

• It will be notified publicly through Platform announcements if there is a material change.
• The reviewer’s continued use of the Platform after the update constitutes acceptance of the revised Policy; if he/she does not agree, should stop using the Platform.

Contact Us

If the reviewers have any questions, comments, or requests regarding this Privacy Policy or the processing of their personal data, please contact us at: privacy@ewapublishing.org.