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.

Initial Editorial Screening

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.

External Peer 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.

Editorial Review

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.

Review Criteria

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?

Editorial Decisions

Possible decisions include:

  • accept;
  • accept with minor revisions;
  • revise and resubmit;
  • reject with encouragement to submit a substantially revised version;
  • reject.

The editorial team aims to provide constructive feedback, especially for interdisciplinary and field-building contributions.