Peer review
Research and Reviews in Sustainability uses double anonymous peer review. Every research article is assessed by at least two independent subject experts.
Peer review
How a decision is reached, and by whom.
Skip to content
How a decision is reached, and by whom.
Research and Reviews in Sustainability uses double anonymous peer review. Every research article is assessed by at least two independent subject experts.
Research and Reviews in Sustainability operates double anonymous peer review. Reviewers are not told who the authors are, and authors are not told who the reviewers are.
This is not a setting that can be switched off. Author identity is held in a separate part of the system from the manuscript, and the reviewer's copy is assembled without it, so a reviewer cannot see an author's name, affiliation or funding even by accident.
Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript file itself before submitting. The system cannot anonymise prose that names the authors' own institution or self-cites in the first person.
1. Checks
The editorial office confirms the submission is complete, in scope, and correctly anonymised, and screens it for similarity with iThenticate. An incomplete submission is returned rather than rejected.
2. Editorial assessment
A handling editor reads the paper and decides whether it should go to review. A paper outside the journal's scope, or clearly below the standard the journal publishes, is declined at this stage with reasons. This is a decision on scope and standard, not a shortcut around review.
3. Review
At least two independent reviewers with subject expertise assess the work. Reviewers are selected by the handling editor for expertise and independence: nobody at the authors' institution, no recent collaborator, and nobody with a declared competing interest. Authors may suggest reviewers and may ask that particular people are not approached; the editor is not bound by either.
4. Decision
The handling editor makes a recommendation on the reviews. The final decision rests with the editorial office and is one of: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, revise and resubmit for further review, or decline. Reviewers advise; editors decide.
5. Revision
Authors receive the full text of every review and respond point by point. A revised paper normally returns to the same reviewers. There is no limit on the number of rounds, but a paper that is not converging will be declined rather than kept in circulation.
A paper can be withdrawn at any point before it is published. Write to rrs@caravelpress.com from the address it was submitted under and say which submission you mean. No reason has to be given.
Once an article is published it cannot be withdrawn. The published record is permanent and the DOI goes on resolving. The only instruments after publication are correction, expression of concern and retraction, set out in the corrections and retractions policy.
Every review scores the paper from 1 to 5 on originality, methodology, significance, clarity and relevance, and requires a written comment on each. A score without a reason is a verdict with no reasoning, and the system will not accept one.
Reviewers also give overall comments to the authors, and may add a confidential note to the editor which the authors never see.
Every published article carries the date it was submitted, the date it was accepted and the date it was published.
A special issue is reviewed to exactly the same standard, by the same process, in the same system as any other submission. There is no separate route and no lighter touch.
What Research and Reviews in Sustainability asks of a reviewer, and what it offers in return.
Reviewing for Research and Reviews in Sustainability takes one click from an email. There is no dashboard to learn, no account to create before you can read the paper, and nothing to install.
You are told the outcome of every paper you review, and you see the other reviews for that round once the decision is made.
Reviewing is unpaid work that holds the literature together, and we record it. A certificate is issued for every review, in your name, the day your report reaches the editors and whatever the paper's outcome. Reviewers reach Bronze, Silver, Gold and Diamond recognition as completed reviews accumulate, and receive a certificate at each level. Every certificate carries a serial that anyone you show it to can check.
We publish no list of our reviewers. Your credit is the certificate itself, which is in your name and carries a serial anyone you show it to can check, and the review recorded against your ORCID where you have given one.
These policies apply to every journal we publish. Last revised 28 August 2026.
United Kingdom