Navigation: Policies > Editorial Standards & Publication Ethics > Editorial Governance, Editorial Independence & Peer Review Policy

This policy sets out CorayNova Academic Press's standards for editorial governance, editorial independence, peer review, editorial decision authority, reviewer selection, desk rejection, conflicts of interest, special editorial handling, and separation of editorial decisions from commercial or institutional influence.

• Scope

This policy applies to submissions, peer review, editorial screening, editorial decisions, revisions, appeals related to editorial process, special issues, guest editor handling, and journal-level peer review disclosures for CorayNova journals.

• Who This Policy Applies To

This policy applies to Editors-in-Chief, authorized editors, associate editors, section editors, editorial board members, guest editors, reviewers, editorial offices, authors, and CorayNova publisher-level staff involved in editorial or peer review workflows.

• Policy Statement

Final academic editorial d ecisions are made by the journal's Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor according to the journal's approved workflow. CorayNova provides policy, ethics, process, platform, and quality oversight, and must not interfere with academic editorial decisions for commercial, institutional, sponsorship, APC, advertising, marketing, or operational convenience reasons.

Each journal must publicly state its peer review model, editorial screening process, reviewer number or expectations, decision process, and article-type exceptions where applicable. Journals may use single-anonymous, double-anonymous, open review, or another approved peer review model.

• Procedures and Standards

Area	Policy standard
Editorial screening	Submissions may be checked for scope, article type, completeness, ethics readiness, language clarity, file integrity, metadata, declarations, and policy compliance before external review.
Desk rejection	Desk rejection is permitted for manuscripts clearly outside scope, unsuitable article type, insufficient ethics materials, not ready for external review, duplicate submission, or other clear policy or quality concerns.
Reviewer expectations	CorayNova encourages research articles to be evaluated by at least two independent peer reviewers where appropriate, but does not impose a fixed number for all article types.
Reviewer selection	Editors select qualified, independent, available, and conflict-free reviewers. Author-suggested reviewers are advisory only.
Reviewer exclusions	Authors may provide reasonable reasons to avoid particular reviewers, but editors make the final judgment.
Conflicts of interest	Editors, guest editors, and editorial board members must not handle manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest.
Editor or guest editor submissions	Submissions by editors, guest editors, or conflicted parties must be handled by an independent editor with no relevant conflict.
Decision categories	Journals may use decision categories such as Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject, Reject and Resubmit, Withdrawn, or Closed according to workflow.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Editors evaluate reviewer comments, manuscript quality, policy compliance, ethics issues, and journal fit before making or recommending a decision.

Peer review records, decision letters, reviewer identities where protected by the review model, editorial correspondence, and conflict-of-interest information must be handled confidentially and retained according to journal workflow, publisher requirements, legal obligations, and operational needs.

• Contact Route

Editorial governance, peer review, reviewer selection, editorial independence, conflicts of interest, and editorial process concerns should be sent to editorial@coraynova.com. Serious institutional-level matters may be sent to executive@coraynova.com. Platform workflow problems should be sent to support@coraynova.com.

• Related Resources

This policy should be read with For Editors, For Reviewers, For Authors, Forms, Templates & Checklists, Research and Publication Ethics Policy, Complaints & Appeals Policy, and Business Model, Revenue Sources, Advertising & Direct Marketing Policy.

This policy is informed by COPE Core Practices, COPE peer review and journal management expectations, PKP/OJS workflow guidance, OA Journals Toolkit, OASPA criteria, and transparency principles for peer review disclosure.

• Policy Administration

Field	Policy information
Effective date	August 15, 2026
Last reviewed	August 15, 2026
Review schedule	At least every 12 months, and earlier when legal, platform, publishing standard, operational, or business changes require review.
Policy owner	Editorial Office, with publisher-level oversight by the Executive Office for governance matters
Version	Version 1.0