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:

1. Optionally, to review the manuscript personally
2. 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	2 weeks maximum
Submission of reviewer comments	30 days
Submission of the revised version by the authors	30 days

Automatic reminders are sent to reviewers on days 7, 14 and 21.

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 AI by reviewers

Reviewers may use artificial intelligence tools to draft their own comments. Reviewers may not use AI to analyse the manuscript, nor upload the manuscript, in whole or in part, to AI tools.

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.