Peer-Review Policy

Review Model

Lips Nexora operates double-blind peer review. Reviewers receive the manuscript with author names, affiliations and acknowledgements removed by the system — not by the author — and authors are shown reviewers only as “Reviewer 1”, “Reviewer 2” and so on. That anonymity is enforced server-side, so it cannot be circumvented by inspecting the page.

Every manuscript that reaches Stage 2 is assessed by at least 2 independent reviewers chosen for subject expertise. This is enforced in both directions: a manuscript cannot enter peer review until that many reviewers are engaged, and no decision can be recorded until that many reviews have been returned. Reviewers are asked to respond within 21 days.

What Reviewers Assess

Reviewers score each manuscript from 1 to 5 against 10 criteria:

• Originality & Novelty — Does the work present genuinely new ideas, methods or findings?
• Significance & Impact — How important are the contributions to the field?
• Technical Soundness — Is the work technically correct and free of errors?
• Methodology & Experimental Design — Are the methods appropriate, rigorous and reproducible?
• Literature Review & Referencing — Is prior work adequately surveyed and correctly attributed?
• Clarity, Structure & Language — Is the manuscript well organised and clearly written?
• Quality of Figures & Tables — Are visuals legible, necessary and well captioned?
• Statistical / Analytical Validity — Are the analyses appropriate and correctly interpreted?
• Conclusions Supported by Results — Do the claims follow from the evidence presented?
• Relevance to Journal Scope — Does the work fit the readership of this journal?

They may also flag ethical concerns, suspected plagiarism, inadequate data availability, a need for language editing or specialist statistical review, and any conflict of interest of their own. Flagged concerns are surfaced prominently to the editor and are never passed to the author verbatim.

Stage 1 Screening Checklist

Before a manuscript consumes reviewer time it is screened against these points, and the completed checklist forms part of the permanent editorial record:

• Within the aims & scope of the journal
• Appears original and not previously published
• Structure and sectioning meet journal requirements
• Language quality is adequate for peer review
• References are complete and correctly formatted
• Figures and tables are legible and properly captioned
• Ethics, consent and data statements are present
• Funding and conflict-of-interest statements are complete
• Similarity check is within the acceptable threshold

Possible Decisions

Accept

The manuscript is publishable as it stands. An APC invoice is raised and it moves to production.

Accept with Minor Revisions

Acceptance in principle. The author makes small corrections which the handling editor verifies — no further peer review.

Accept with Major Revisions

Acceptance in principle, subject to substantial revision. The revised manuscript returns to the original reviewers for a second round.

Reject — Resubmission Encouraged

This version is rejected, but a substantially reworked manuscript would be welcomed as a new submission.

Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for this journal.

Reject — Resubmission Not Permitted

The manuscript is rejected and this work may not be resubmitted to the journal in any form.

Desk Reject

Rejected at Stage 1 without peer review — out of scope, below threshold, or failing screening checks.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not circulate them, use their content before publication, or discuss them outside the review process. Reviewers who find themselves unable to be impartial are asked to decline — a prompt decline is far more useful to us than a compromised review.

Recognition

Peer review is unpaid, largely invisible work. Every completed review earns a downloadable certificate of peer review, naming the reviewer, the manuscript reference and the date, which can be used in promotion and funding applications. The certificate identifies the manuscript by reference number only, so it evidences the contribution without breaching confidentiality.

Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision by writing to [email protected] setting out their grounds. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief and, where appropriate, an independent member of the editorial board who was not involved in the original decision.