Review Model: Double-Blind Peer Review

• Neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identity.

• Ensures impartiality and minimizes bias.

Review Process

1. Initial Screening (Editor-in-Chief / Section Editor)

Assessed for:

• Fit with the journal’s scope

• Originality

• Ethical compliance

• Quality of writing and citations

2. Assignment to Reviewers

• Typically two reviewers with expertise in the topic

• Standard review period: 4–6 weeks

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

• Contribution to critical, intersectional, and decolonial ecology

• Theoretical rigor and conceptual clarity

• Methodological soundness (including Indigenous and community-based methods)

• Ethical treatment of communities and data

• Quality of analysis and argumentation

• Engagement with relevant literature

• Writing clarity and accessibility

4. Editorial Decision Options

• Accept

• Minor revisions

• Major revisions

• Reject

5. Revision & Re-review

• Manuscripts requiring major revisions will typically undergo a second round of review

• Final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief

Ethical Review Standards

• No exploitation or misrepresentation of Indigenous or marginalized communities

• Authors must demonstrate community consent and ethical engagement where applicable

• Plagiarism is strictly prohibited