Uirtus employs a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure fairness, quality, and transparency. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout review and—where applicable—during subsequent rounds of revision.
Workflow at a Glance
- Initial Screening (Editorial Triage)
The editorial team evaluates scope fit, originality, ethical compliance, and basic reporting standards. Submissions may be returned for technical fixes before review. - Anonymization & Integrity Checks
Manuscripts and supplementary files are prepared for double-blind review (removal of identifying metadata; figures/tables checked for inadvertent identifiers). Plagiarism and image-manipulation screenings are performed. - Reviewer Selection
Editors invite 2–3 independent experts based on subject expertise, prior scholarship, and absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewers accept a confidentiality and ethics statement. - External Review (Double-Blind)
Reviewers assess methodological rigor, originality, clarity, data transparency, and significance. Structured reports include narrative comments and scored criteria. - Editorial Decision
The handling editor weighs reviewer reports and recommends one of: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject, or Transfer/Redirect (when appropriate). - Revisions & Verification
Authors submit a point-by-point response and a marked manuscript. For substantial changes, the paper may be re-reviewed by original or new reviewers. - Final Decision & Acceptance
Upon acceptance, the article proceeds to copyediting, typesetting, author proofs, and publication.
Typical Timelines
- Initial Screening: 3–7 days
- Reviewer Assignment: 3–10 days
- External Review: 14–28 days
- Revision Windows: Minor 7–14 days; Major 21–42 days
- Post-acceptance Production: 7–14 days
Timelines are averages and may vary by field, complexity, and reviewer availability.
Evaluation Criteria
- Conceptual novelty and contribution to the field
- Methodological soundness and reproducibility
- Quality and transparency of data, code, and materials
- Clarity of presentation and adequacy of references
- Ethical compliance (e.g., human/animal research approvals, consent, data privacy)
Ethics, Confidentiality, and Conflicts of Interest
- All participants must disclose conflicts of interest; conflicted reviewers are recused.
- Review materials are confidential and used solely for editorial purposes.
- Suspected misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication) is handled per COPE-aligned procedures.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal decisions by providing a concise, evidence-based rationale addressing reviewer/editorial points. Appeals are adjudicated by a senior editor not involved in the original decision.
Open Science Practices
Uirtus encourages preregistration, data and code sharing, and reporting checklists. Links to repositories (where appropriate) should be included in submissions; sensitive data must follow ethical and legal constraints.
For questions about peer review at Uirtus, contact the editorial office via the journal’s Contact page.