Oxton Science Journal adopts double-blind peer review as its standard model: the identities of authors and reviewers are mutually concealed throughout the process. This protects the impartiality of the evaluation and ensures manuscripts are judged on scientific merit alone.

1. Editorial Screening

Every submission is first examined by the editor-in-chief or a designated editor for adherence to scope, originality, scientific relevance, structural adequacy, completeness of ethics documentation, minimum writing quality and presence of both the identified and anonymized files. Manuscripts may be returned for documentary adjustments or rejected at screening, always with a documented justification. Out-of-scope manuscripts may be desk-rejected without external review.

2. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

Manuscripts approved at screening are assigned to independent reviewers with expertise in the subject. As a rule, at least two reviewers evaluate each manuscript. Author-suggested reviewers may be considered but are not binding; requested exclusions are respected when justified. Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest before accepting, and the anonymized manuscript is released only after acceptance of the invitation.

3. The Review

Reviewers complete a structured form rating originality, methodological quality, clarity and relevance, with detailed comments to the authors, optional confidential comments to the editor, and a formal recommendation. Reviewers have a defined deadline; reminders are issued automatically, and incomplete reports cannot be submitted.

4. Editorial Decision and Revision

Based on the reports, the editor issues a documented decision: accept, minor revision, major revision, new review round, or reject. Authors receive the decision with the anonymized reports and, for revisions, submit a revised identified and anonymized version together with a point-by-point response letter. The platform preserves the full version history. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers.

5. Timelines and Recognition

The journal aims for a first decision within a reasonable timeframe and monitors overdue reviews. Reviewers receive a verifiable peer review certificate for each completed review. The scientific decision is never influenced by fees or fast track status; fast track affects administrative timelines only.

6. Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision once, in writing, with a scientific justification, under the journal's Complaints and Appeals policy.