Peer review policy

Review model and rationale

Lumora journals use double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review by default: reviewers do not know who the authors are, and authors do not learn the reviewers' identities. We chose this model deliberately.

• It reduces bias. Concealing author identity limits the influence of seniority, institution, gender, nationality, and prior reputation on the assessment — the manuscript is judged on its content.
• It protects reviewers. Anonymity lets reviewers, including early-career researchers assessing senior colleagues' work, give candid criticism without fear of professional consequences.
• Its limits are managed. Anonymization is never perfect in small fields; editors — who do see author identities — remain responsible for checking conflicts of interest that anonymization alone cannot catch.

Authors must prepare submissions for anonymous review: identifying details belong on a separate title page, and self-citations should be worded so they do not reveal authorship (see the Author Guidelines). Every peer-reviewed article is assessed by independent reviewers in addition to the handling editor; editorials and similar non-research content are identified as such and are not represented as peer reviewed.

The review process

1. Submission & acknowledgement (Day 0). Authors submit through the journal portal. An automated confirmation is sent from Support@lumora.sa. No reply is needed.
2. Desk review (Day 1). The editorial office checks scope, completeness, similarity screening, ethics approvals, and adherence to author guidelines. Out-of-scope or incomplete submissions may be returned without external review — a quick desk decision respects authors' time.
3. Peer review (Days 2–5). The handling editor invites qualified independent reviewers, who assess originality, methodological rigor, ethical soundness, clarity, and contribution to the field. Reviews are advisory: they inform, but do not replace, the editorial decision.
4. Editorial decision (Days 6–7). The handling editor weighs the reviews and reaches a decision:accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Authors receive a decision letter with the reviewers' anonymized comments. Rejection notices require no reply.
5. Revision & re-review. Revised manuscripts must include a point-by-point response to every reviewer comment. Minor revisions are usually checked by the editor; major revisions may return to the original reviewers.
6. Acceptance & production. Accepted manuscripts proceed to APC invoicing. Production begins once payment is confirmed (see APC Information). Acceptance is never influenced by ability to pay — see the waiver provisions in that policy.

Timelines

Lumora's editorial target is a first decision within 7 days of submission. Speed never overrides rigor: if a manuscript requires additional reviewer expertise, statistical review, or ethics clarification, the editor takes the time needed and keeps authors informed. What we do not do is let manuscripts sit idle in multi-week queues.

• Desk review: Day 1
• Peer review: Days 2–5
• First decision: Days 6–7 (maximum target)
• Revision window: set by the editor based on the scope of changes
• Publication after acceptance: after APC payment is confirmed and production is complete

How reviewers are selected

Reviewers are chosen by the handling editor based on:

• Subject expertise — demonstrated by publications, clinical or methodological experience relevant to the manuscript, including statistical expertise where the design demands it;
• Independence — no recent co-authorship, shared institution, supervisory relationship, or other conflict with the authors (as far as the editor can determine);
• Track record — timeliness and quality of previous reviews, where known;
• Diversity — editors aim for a balanced reviewer pool across institutions, geographies, and career stages.

Authors may suggest reviewers or request exclusions in the cover letter; suggestions are advisory only, and editors verify the identity and independence of any suggested reviewer before inviting them. At least two independent reviews are normally obtained for research articles before a post-review decision.

Confidentiality of the review process

• Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share them, discuss them with colleagues without the editor's permission, or contact the authors directly.
• Reviewers must not use unpublished data, methods, or ideas from a manuscript for their own advantage before publication.
• Manuscripts must not be uploaded to generative AI tools or any external service, as this breaches confidentiality — see the AI Policy.
• Review reports, reviewer identities, and editorial correspondence are kept confidential by the journal, disclosed only where required by a misconduct investigation.
• Anyone who assisted with a review (for example, a supervised junior colleague) must be declared to the editor.

Conflicts of interest in review

Invited reviewers must declare any interest that could bias their judgement and decline the assignment where impartiality is not possible — including recent collaboration or co-authorship with the authors (typically within 3 years), working at the same institution, close personal relationships, direct competition on the same research question, or financial interests in the outcome. If author identity becomes apparent during a double-anonymous review and creates a conflict, the reviewer should alert the editor immediately. Editors with a conflict hand the manuscript to another editor. Full definitions are in the Conflict of Interest Policy.

Reviewer misconduct

Peer review depends on reviewers acting in good faith. The following are treated as misconduct and investigated under COPE guidance:

• Breaching confidentiality or using a manuscript's content for personal gain;
• Deliberately delaying a review to disadvantage the authors, or misrepresenting qualifications;
• Coercing authors to cite the reviewer's work as a condition of a favorable review;
• Submitting a review generated by an AI tool, or an assessment not written by the invited reviewer;
• Impersonation or participation in peer-review rings that fake identities or reviews.

Confirmed reviewer misconduct leads to removal from the reviewer pool and, where appropriate, notification of the reviewer's institution. If compromised review affected a published article, the journal follows the Corrections & Retractions Policy.

Editorial decisions and appeals

Possible decisions are accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Decisions are made by the handling editor and editor-in-chief on scholarly grounds and are independent of the publisher — see Editorial Policies.

Authors may appeal a decision by writing to Support@lumora.sa with a reasoned, evidence-based case — for example, a documented factual error in a review or evidence of an undisclosed reviewer conflict. Disagreement with a subjective judgement is not, by itself, grounds for appeal. Appeals are considered once per manuscript by the editor-in-chief (with an independent adviser where needed); the appeal decision is final. Submitting an appeal never prejudices future submissions.

Communication

All workflow notifications (submission received, decision letters, publication notices) are sent from Support@lumora.sa. Lumora's editorial office responds to author and reviewer inquiries within 24 hours, 24/7.

Last updated: July 2026 · Related: Publication Ethics, Conflict of Interest Policy, Author Guidelines, AI Policy, All Policies