Editorial workflow
Initial editorial assessment. The Editors-in-Chief carry out an initial assessment of thematic fit, minimum quality, ethical requirements and formal compliance. Manuscripts that do not meet minimum standards of quality or scientific clarity may be rejected at this stage (desk rejection).
Assignment to an Associate Editor. The Editors-in-Chief assign the manuscript to an Associate Editor, who has two roles:
- Optionally, to review the manuscript personally
- To identify external reviewers
If the Associate Editor reviews the manuscript personally, they seek 1 additional external reviewer (total: 2 reviews). If they do not, they seek 2 external reviewers (total: 2 reviews).
Peer review. Double-blind system. Reviewers have 30 days to submit their comments.
Editorial decision. Once the reviews have been received, the Associate Editor forwards the comments together with a recommendation to the Editors-in-Chief. The final editorial decision (accept, reject, minor revision, major revision) is taken by the Editors-in-Chief, not by the Associate Editor.
Response to reviewers. Authors must submit:
- A response letter addressing the changes point by point, with the modified text marked in red so that it can be easily identified.
- The revised manuscript with all changes marked in red, so that reviewers can see the outcome of their comments.
Timelines
| Stage | Timeline |
|---|---|
| First editorial decision (including desk rejection without external review) | 1-2 weeks |
| First decision after peer review | 75-90 days |
| Reviewer accepts or declines the invitation | 1 week maximum |
| Submission of reviewer comments | 30 days |
| Submission of the revised version by the authors | 30 days |
Automatic reminders are sent to reviewers 5 days before the review deadline and 3 days before the deadline to respond to the invitation; if a deadline is missed, one further reminder is sent the following day.
Associate Editors have 48-72 hours to accept or decline an assignment. An Associate Editor who does not meet the deadlines will be replaced.
Quality of writing
The quality of the writing is included as an assessment criterion. A reviewer may return a manuscript unreviewed if the quality of the writing is clearly insufficient.
Use of artificial intelligence in peer review
RESED allows the use of AI tools to support auxiliary review tasks, such as bibliographic checking, comparison with reporting guidelines, preliminary identification of inconsistencies, checking calculations or code and organizing reviewer comments. AI must not replace the scientific assessment of the manuscript or determine the reviewer’s recommendation.
When generative or AI-assisted tools are used, manuscript confidentiality must be preserved, only the minimum necessary information should be shared and appropriate environments must be used for unpublished content. Any such use must be disclosed in the confidential comments to the editor, indicating the tool used, the purpose and what manuscript content was entered into the tool.
For full information, please consult the Policy on the use of artificial intelligence by authors, reviewers and editors of RESED.
Recognition of reviewers
- Annual certificate of participation as a reviewer.
- List of reviewers published in the last issue of each year.
Reviewers' conflicts of interest
Reviewers must decline an invitation if they can identify the authors or if they have any other conflict of interest.
Editorial transparency
RESED will publish editorial metrics (time to first decision, acceptance rate) and will keep a visible last-updated date on all its policies.