Peer-Review
Peer-Review Process and Policy
Maintaining the highest ethical standards during the peer-review process is a priority for this journal. Therefore, the primary guidelines for this journal are COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer-Reviewers and UMT Publication Policy. All submitted manuscripts undergo a peer-review process to guarantee their quality and compliance with academic standards.
1. Type of Peer-Review
This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity. To help with this preparation, please ensure the following when submitting to this journal:
Information to Help Prepare the Title Page
This should include the title, authors’ names, complete affiliations, and e-mail address for the corresponding author. Acknowledgements, conflict of interest statement, and author contributions statement are also placed on this page.
Information to Help Prepare the Main Document/Blinded Manuscript
This should include the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion, conclusions, and references.
2. Reviewer Selection Process
The reviewers are selected based on their expertise and relevance to the submitted manuscript. Reviewers recommended by authors are welcomed by this journal, but they may not necessarily be used. Each manuscript will be reviewed by at least two expert reviewers, after which the Chief Editor will make a final decision.
3. Reviewer Reports
Reviewers must complete the Review Form, which includes the following requirements:
• Originality of topic
• Appropriateness of contents
• Suitability of research methodology
• Structure of data analysis (interpretation and results)
• Adequacy and relevance of references
• Presentation and organization of the manuscript
• Relevance/significance to the journal
• Overall quality and impact
Language correction is not part of the peer-review process, but reviewers can suggest improvements to the manuscript's language and writing style. In some cases, authors may be required to carry out proofreading or comprehensive language revisions before resubmitting the manuscript. To ensure high-quality of the article, the publisher will appoint language editors to conduct detailed language editing after the article has been accepted for publication.
4. Peer-Review Process
The respective editor will invite two or more reviewers to review the manuscript. The potential reviewers are required to respond to the email invitation. The peer-review process begins when the appointed reviewers are assigned through Open Journal Systems (OJS). The reviewer will receive a notification via email regarding the assignment. They are required to complete the Review Form provided within the system, which includes providing comments on the manuscript. At the end of the process, the reviewers must provide recommendations as follows (choose only one):
1. Accept Submission
2. Revisions Required (Minor Revision/Major Revision)
3. Resubmit for Review
4. Resubmit Elsewhere
5. Decline Submission
6. See Comments
If the reviewer has submitted their comments through another platform or channel, the review file must also be uploaded into the system to ensure the review process continues smoothly and a proper record.
5. Duration of Review Process
The duration for the reviewers to complete the review process is two weeks.
6. Final Report and Decision
The editor will provide a recommendation of the manuscript based on the reviewers’ reports and suggestions. This recommendation will serve as an important reference for the Editor-in-Chief in deciding whether to accept or reject the manuscript.
Peer-Review Process and Policy
Commitment to Peer-Review and Editorial Oversight
Planetary Sustainability (Planet Sust) is committed to maintaining high academic and ethical standards. All content published in Planet Sust, including primary research articles, reviews, commentaries, and editorials, is subject to either rigorous peer-review or editorial oversight to ensure integrity, quality, and relevance.
What is Peer-Review?
The peer-review system exists to validate academic work, helps to improve the quality of published work, and increases possibilities of impact within research communities. Despite some limitations, peer-review is still the only widely accepted method for scientific research validation.
Peer-Review of Primary Research Articles
Primary research articles submitted to Planet Sust are always subject to external peer-review by independent experts. Planet Sust relies on the peer-review process to uphold the quality and validity of individual articles.
Review Model Used in Planet Sust
Planet Sust employs double anonymised review model, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the process. Authors must therefore prepare manuscripts in a way that does not reveal their identities, either directly or indirectly.
To support this process, authors are required to submit the following items in a separate title file:
Title page (not sent to reviewers) including:
- Manuscript title
- All authors’ names and affiliations
- Full address for the corresponding author, including an e-mail address
- Acknowledgements
- Author contributions statement
- Conflict of interest statement
This model helps to limit reviewer bias relating to gender, country of origin, academic status, or reputation. Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered solely on the content of their work.
Different Review Traditions in Other Disciplines
While Planet Sust employs a double-anonymised peer-review model, we acknowledge that some academic communities (e.g., arts, law, or humanities) may use alternative accepted forms of review. These traditions are respected when they are broadly recognised in their scholarly fields, provided they uphold the principles of fairness, quality, and transparency.
Before You Submit
Dear Author, to save your time, please read carefully the information below before you start the submission. Check carefully if your article has good chances to be processed for peer-reviewing and possible acceptance. We also strongly encourage you to read the editorial note and the reviewing process in the chart below.
Principal Reasons for Rejection are:
1. The manuscript does not comply with the editorial requirements (abstract, institutional email, etc.), including being out of scope. Articles not fitting with the aims and scope of the journal will be rejected by the Managing Editor prior to review. Please ensure that the manuscript fits the scope of Planet Sust.
2. Lack of originality. Studies that are essentially confirmatory of similar studies previously published and not adding to knowledge will not be considered for publication.
3. Contain ethical issues, for example:
• when dealing with animals and human specimens.
• data manipulation (manipulation of images), unethical use of machine learning and AI for image generation, data duplication or “salami splicing” (splitting the data in two or more articles).
4. Data do not support the conclusion.
5. Plagiarism (including self-plagiarism).
Principal Reasons for Major Revision:
- The experimental design needs adjustments and/or requires additional information.
- Changing the data presentation style, new angles should be provided to support the conclusion.
- Addition of discussion to support the findings.
Principal Reasons for Minor Revision:
- Need explanation, clarification, more information.
- Low quality of figures.
- Addition of discussion by including other (recent) references to support the findings.
- Improve readability of the manuscript; proof-reading/copyediting for improving English grammar.
- Acknowledgements to funding agency.
Editorial Role:
Chief Editor
Role: Strategic leader and final authority for all editorial decisions.
Responsibilities:
- Defines journal vision, scope, and editorial policy.
- Appoints and supervises Managing Editor, Associate Editors, and other board members.
- Assign manuscripts to appropriate Associate Editors based on expertise and workload.
- Oversees quality, ethics, and compliance.
- Makes final acceptance/rejection decisions.
- Approves special issues and editorial initiatives.
Managing Editor
Role: Day-to-day operations and process oversight.
Responsibilities:
- Ensure manuscripts follow the standard of Planet Sust.
- Screen new submissions in their section/field to check fit and quality.
- Coordinate the manuscript tracking system and deadlines.
- Responding to authors’ email.
- Liaise with publisher for production, marketing, and indexing.
Associate Editor
Role: Manage the peer-review process for assigned manuscripts.
Responsibilities:
- Conduct initial technical/quality checks.
- Identify and invite qualified reviewers.
- Oversee peer-review to ensure timely, constructive reports.
- Recommend a decision (accept/revise/reject) to the Chief Editor based on reviewer feedback.
- Communicate decisions and revision requests to authors.
Journal Editorial Workflow
1. Author Submission
The author submits the manuscript through the OJS submission system.
2. Initial Screening
The Managing Editor checks the manuscript for completeness, formatting, submission requirements, and compliance with the journal's guidelines.
3. Assignment to Associate Editor
The Managing Editor assigns the manuscript to an Associate Editor based on the manuscript's subject area and the Associate Editor's expertise.
4. Peer-Review
The Associate Editor manages the peer-review process, including reviewer selection, reviewer invitations, monitoring of reviews, and evaluation of reviewer reports. The Associate Editor then recommends an editorial decision.
5. Final Editorial Decision
The Chief Editor reviews the Associate Editor's recommendation and reviewer reports and makes the final editorial decision.
6. Production and Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production process managed by the publisher, including copyediting, typesetting, proofreading, final preparation, and publication.
Simplified Workflow of Planet Sust
Author Submission →Initial Screening →Associate Editor →Peer-Review →Chief Editor →Editor Decision Production →Publication
