PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Community service articles undergo editorial screening and assessment by at least two reviewers with relevant expertise. The journal uses single-anonymous peer review: reviewers may see author names and affiliations, while reviewer identities are withheld from authors in the standard review correspondence.

Editorial screening

The editor assesses scope, completeness, originality, ethical safeguards, and the quality of the account. Particular attention is given to the partner's problem, the implemented activity, evaluation methods, supporting evidence, and contribution to community empowerment practice. A submission may be rejected or returned for improvement before external review.

Reviewer selection and assessment

Reviewers are selected for subject or methodological expertise and independence from the work. They evaluate the relevance of the intervention, the community's participation, appropriateness of implementation and evaluation, clarity of results, responsible interpretation, and sustainability considerations. Relevant supplementary materials are assessed with the manuscript.

Reports should be objective, respectful, and supported by reasons. Reviewers must disclose relevant competing interests, decline unsuitable assignments, and protect the confidentiality of the manuscript and its supporting materials. Authors should not contact reviewers directly about their submission.

Editorial decisions

Reviewers provide recommendations. The responsible editor makes the decision after considering their reports and the journal's criteria. Outcomes include rejection, major revision, minor revision, and acceptance. An additional reviewer may be consulted if reports conflict or significant questions remain.

Authors must respond to review comments point by point and provide a revised manuscript. Revisions may undergo further review. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance. Review reports are used in editorial assessment and are not routinely published alongside articles.

Review timing and expedited service

Completion time depends on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the extent of revision. An optional fast-track review service is described on the Author Fee page. It provides a response concerning the manuscript within seven working days; it does not guarantee acceptance, completion of all review rounds, or publication within that period.

Expedited submissions must meet the same scholarly and ethical criteria and receive the same independent review requirements as other community service articles. Fees do not determine publication decisions.

Editorial independence and exceptions

An editor with a relevant competing interest must not handle the submission or select its reviewers. Submissions involving editors or board members are assigned to an uninvolved editor and independent reviewers. Editorials and formal notices receive editorial assessment; scholarly comments and replies may receive expert review. Their status is distinguished from peer-reviewed community service articles.

Appeals

Authors may appeal by identifying a specific factual or procedural error and providing supporting evidence to the editorial office. An editor or adviser without a relevant conflict reviews the appeal. A reasoned appeal is assessed on its evidence.