Peer Review Policy

​

1. Review Model

We use an open review process between the author and reviewer. This shifts peer review from a one-way evaluation into an interactive dialogue. 

This model creates collaborative problem-solving. Authors and reviewers directly engage with one another - often in real time or on a shared platform.

​

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions undergo an initial assessment by the Editor‑in‑Chief or a designated Associate Editor to determine:

• relevance to planetary ethics, environmental accounting, and sustainability governance

• compliance with submission guidelines

• originality and absence of plagiarism

• methodological soundness

• ethical compliance (including data integrity and responsible use of environmental/biodiversity information)

Manuscripts that do not meet basic criteria may be rejected without external review.

​

3. Selection of Reviewers

Two independent experts evaluate each manuscript 

• demonstrated expertise in the subject area

• no conflicts of interest with the authors

• strong publication records in relevant fields

In cases of divergent reviews, a third reviewer or a senior editorial adjudicator may be appointed.

​

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• provide objective, constructive, and evidence‑based evaluations

• assess methodological rigour, theoretical contribution, clarity, and relevance

• identify ethical concerns, plagiarism, or data irregularities

• recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection

• submit reviews within the agreed timeframe

• maintain strict confidentiality and avoid using unpublished material for personal advantage

Reviewers must decline assignments where conflicts of interest exist.

​

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

• originality and contribution to planetary ethics, environmental accounting, and sustainability science

• conceptual clarity and theoretical grounding

• methodological appropriateness and transparency

• quality and integrity of data (including environmental, biodiversity, and accounting datasets)

• coherence of analysis and interpretation

• relevance to policy, governance, and planetary stewardship

• quality of writing and structure

• compliance with ethical standards and responsible research practices

​

6. Editorial Decision Process

After receiving reviewer reports, the Editor‑in‑Chief or Associate Editor will issue one of the following decisions:

• Accept

• Minor Revision

• Major Revision

• Reject

Revisions are evaluated to ensure authors have addressed reviewer comments adequately. Revised manuscripts may be re‑reviewed depending on the extent of changes required.

​

7. Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a detailed justification. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor‑in‑Chief and, where necessary, an independent senior reviewer. Decisions on appeals are final.

​

8. Ethical Compliance

The journal adheres to COPE’s Core Practices and expects:

• transparency in data and methods

• responsible use of biodiversity and environmental information

• proper attribution of indigenous and local knowledge

• disclosure of funding and conflicts of interest

• compliance with international frameworks such as the Nagoya Protocol and SEEA‑EA principles

Suspected misconduct (plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission) is investigated following COPE procedures.

​

9. Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviews, and editorial communications are treated as confidential. Reviewers and editors must not:

• share manuscripts

• discuss content externally

• use unpublished data for personal research

​

10. Reviewer Recognition

To support transparency and academic service:

• reviewers may opt‑in to receive acknowledgement in annual journal reports

• the journal may issue reviewer certificates upon request

​

11. Transparency of Process

The journal publicly discloses:

• its peer‑review model

• editorial board membership

• ethical standards

• conflict‑of‑interest policies

• publication timelines

​

​