Peer Review Policy
NOVAXIS
Peer Review Policy
NOVAXIS publishes research only after independent expert assessment. Peer review at NOVAXIS exists to test whether a manuscript's claims are supported by its methods, data and reasoning; it is not a measure of novelty fashion or of the authors' standing. This policy states how that assessment is organised, who carries it out, and what authors and reviewers may expect from each other.
Review model: single-anonymized (single-blind)
NOVAXIS operates single-anonymized review. Reviewers know the identities and affiliations of the authors; the identities of reviewers are confidential and remain so after publication, indefinitely, unless a reviewer asks the journal in writing to be named.
The model is a deliberate choice, not a default. Knowing who the authors are lets reviewers judge a manuscript in its real context: continuity with the group's earlier publications, plausibility of data provenance and access, undeclared overlap with related papers, and compliance with field-specific reporting obligations. Anonymity on the reviewer side protects candour — particularly for early-career reviewers assessing the work of senior groups — and shields reviewers from pressure before and after the decision.
The journal is equally explicit about the model's known weakness: visible authorship can invite prestige and affiliation bias. NOVAXIS counters this structurally rather than by assurance. Every report is written against the same published criteria on a structured form; at least two independent reviewers from different institutions assess each manuscript; the handling editor weighs the evidence in reports, not their tone or count; and reviewer pools are deliberately drawn across institutions, regions and career stages.
What is reviewed
- All research articles, review articles, methods papers and registered reports receive external peer review. No such item is accepted on editorial reading alone.
- Editorials, corrections, retraction notices and news items are assessed by the editorial office and are marked as not externally reviewed.
- Revised manuscripts return to the original reviewers wherever possible; the editor may close review of minor revisions when reports requested only specific verifiable changes.
Process and timelines
| Stage | What happens | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Integrity screening | Similarity, image and AI-generated-text checks; completeness of data, code and ethics statements | 5 days |
| Editorial assessment | Fit to scope and threshold soundness; manuscripts declined here receive brief reasons | 7 days |
| External review | Minimum two independent reviewers; a third is invited when reports conflict on substance | 21 days per reviewer |
| First decision | Editor's decision with all reports, verbatim except for edits removing identifying or inappropriate remarks | 6 weeks from submission |
| Revision | Minor: 4 weeks. Major: 12 weeks, with point-by-point response | — |
Reviewers: selection, conflicts, conduct
- Reviewers are chosen for demonstrated expertise in the manuscript's methods or subject, verified by publication record, not by suggestion alone. Author-suggested reviewers may be used but never as the sole assessors; author-opposed reviewers are excluded when the objection is reasoned.
- A reviewer must decline when conflicted: co-authorship or shared funding with any author within the past three years, same institution, supervisory or close personal relationships, or any financial interest in the outcome.
- Manuscripts are confidential documents. They may not be shared, used, or cited before publication, and may not be uploaded, in whole or in part, into external or generative AI tools; doing so is a breach of confidentiality. A reviewer remains fully accountable for every statement in the report, and any assistive tool use must be disclosed to the editor.
- Reports address the work, not the authors: claims of error must cite the passage and the evidence. Review may not be delegated without the editor's prior consent.
Decisions and appeals
- Decisions are accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. The handling editor decides on the substance of the reports; reviewing is advisory and decisions are not taken by counting votes.
- Authors may appeal a rejection once, in writing, on evidence of factual error or procedural failure. Appeals are assessed by an editor not involved in the original decision, and the appeal decision is final.
Confidentiality and reviewer recognition
The journal never discloses reviewer identities to authors or third parties, and defends that confidentiality in disputes. Reviewers may claim their contribution in aggregate through ORCID and similar services in a form that does not link them to specific manuscripts. Review reports are retained with the editorial record; misconduct concerns arising in review are handled under COPE guidance, which the journal follows in all peer review matters.