Editorial Team

Freedom.Science is an independent open-access journal supported by an editorial structure that brings together expertise across freedom, safety, responsibility, governance, ethics, technology, human dignity and societal resilience.

The editorial team is being developed gradually during the founding phase of the journal.

Freedom.Science welcomes expressions of interest from scholars and professionals whose work contributes to the scientific study of sustainable, responsible and harmonious freedom.

Editor-in-Chief

Dr. Mohammad Rajabali Nejad
Editor-in-Chief and Founding Editor
Faculty of Engineering Technology
University of Twente
The Netherlands

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the journal’s editorial direction, scope and final publication decisions.

This role includes guiding the development of the journal, ensuring coherence across contributions and maintaining a balance between scientific quality, interdisciplinary relevance and societal responsibility.

The institutional affiliation is provided for identification only and does not imply institutional control or endorsement.

Advisory Editors

The advisory editorial network is currently being developed.

Advisory Editors may contribute expertise across domains relevant to the scientific study of freedom, including safety science, governance, responsible AI, human dignity, institutional trust, law, ethics, engineering, systems thinking and societal resilience.

Advisory roles are voluntary and based on subject-matter expertise.

Final editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.

Editorial Responsibilities

Freedom.Science follows the following editorial principles:

  • final editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief;
  • advisory editors may provide guidance but do not determine acceptance decisions;
  • manuscripts from editorial members are handled transparently;
  • peer-review status is clearly indicated for each publication;
  • the journal distinguishes between peer-reviewed articles, editorials, invited commentaries and position papers;
  • conflicts of interest are handled transparently.

Peer Review Policy

Freedom.Science is committed to fair, constructive and proportionate review.

The journal recognises that interdisciplinary work on freedom, responsibility, safety, governance and technology may take different forms. Review procedures are therefore adapted to the nature of each contribution while maintaining scholarly integrity.

Freedom.Science follows the general NEDION Press Peer Review Framework and applies it according to the journal’s aims, scope and publication formats.

All submissions are first screened by the editorial team for:

  • fit with the journal’s aims and scope;
  • clarity and relevance;
  • originality and contribution;
  • ethical and legal suitability;
  • basic scholarly quality;
  • appropriate publication format.

Submissions that are clearly outside the scope of the journal may be declined without external review.

Research articles, review papers, methods papers and substantial conceptual papers are normally sent for external peer review.

Reviewers are selected based on expertise, independence and relevance to the submission.

The review process is intended to be constructive and developmental, especially because Freedom.Science is concerned with an emerging interdisciplinary field.

Editorials, invited commentaries, position papers, short perspective papers and selected work-in-progress papers may undergo editorial review rather than full external peer review.

Editorial review assesses:

  • clarity;
  • responsibility;
  • relevance;
  • argument quality;
  • accuracy of claims;
  • appropriate tone;
  • fit with the journal’s mission.

Where appropriate, expert feedback may be requested.

Reviewers may be asked to consider:

  • Does the submission fit the aims and scope of Freedom.Science?
  • Is the contribution original or meaningfully integrative?
  • Is the argument clear and well structured?
  • Are claims supported by evidence, reasoning or appropriate references?
  • Does the manuscript engage responsibly with existing literature?
  • Are ethical, legal and societal implications addressed where relevant?
  • Does the paper contribute to the scientific understanding of freedom?
  • Is the writing accessible across disciplines?

Reviewers may be asked to consider:

  • Does the submission fit the aims and scope of Freedom.Science?
  • Is the contribution original or meaningfully integrative?
  • Is the argument clear and well structured?
  • Are claims supported by evidence, reasoning or appropriate references?
  • Does the manuscript engage responsibly with existing literature?
  • Are ethical, legal and societal implications addressed where relevant?
  • Does the paper contribute to the scientific understanding of freedom?
  • Is the writing accessible across disciplines?