Peer Review
Compendium employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure scholarly quality and impartiality.
Initial Screening
The Executive Editor, together with the Issue Editors, conducts an initial review of all submissions to assess writing quality, alignment with the call for papers, and compliance with submission guidelines.
Double-Blind Review Process
- To ensure complete anonymity, authors must:
- Remove all self-identifying information from submissions
- Delete author details from document properties
- Eliminate references to their previous works
- Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two expert reviewers who assess:
- Thematic relevance and originality
- Theoretical framework and scientific accuracy
- Methodological rigor
- Literature review and bibliography
- Writing clarity (including foreign language abstract)
- Argument consistency and research outcomes
Review Outcomes
The reports from reviewers include a substantiated comment and provide one of four recommendations: accept without revisions, accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions, or reject.
Decision-Making Authority
The final publication decision rests with the Executive Editor, who consults with the Issue Editors to reach a consensus based on reviewer recommendations, editorial assessment, and Compendium's scope and standards.
Revision Process
Authors have 30 days to submit revisions addressing reviewer feedback, with changes clearly marked in the revised manuscript. The editorial team conducts a final review of writing, formatting, and style.
Quality Assurance
- All reviewers are PhD holders and recognized scholars in their field
- The evaluation committee is credited in the front matter of the published issue
- Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest
- The editorial team ensures consistent formatting and presentation standards.
