Arkus applies double-anonymous peer review. Author and reviewer identities are concealed from each other during review.

1. Initial editorial screening

The editorial office checks scope, article type, completeness, originality, ethical declarations, reporting quality, authorship information, file anonymization, and policy compliance. Submissions may be returned or declined without external review when unsuitable.

2. Reviewer selection

An editor selects qualified reviewers based on expertise, independence, availability, and absence of conflicts. Author suggestions may be considered but are not binding. Reviewers from the same institution, recent collaborators, supervisors, students, close personal associates, or persons with material competing interests are avoided.

3. Independent evaluation

Reviewers assess originality, importance, methods, analysis, interpretation, reporting, ethics, references, limitations, and presentation. Reviews are confidential and must not be delegated or uploaded to external AI systems.

4. Decision and revision

The editor considers the reports and makes one of four decisions: accept, revisions required, resubmit for review, or decline. Authors must respond point by point. Revised manuscripts may return to the original or new reviewers. Conflicting reports may lead to additional review.

5. Final responsibility

The editor makes the final decision and may reject a manuscript despite favourable reviews when serious validity, ethics, originality, or scope concerns remain. Editorial board submissions are handled by an independent editor without the authors involvement.

Typical timing

Reviewers are normally invited to respond within one week and complete a review within two weeks. Times are targets, not guarantees, and quality or specialist availability may require longer.