Synthēsis is committed to rigorous, fair and transparent peer review. This page describes how submissions are assessed, from initial editorial triage through to the final decision. The journal follows the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the recommendations of the ICMJE and WAME.

1. Initial editorial triage

Every submission is first assessed by a handling editor before any decision to send it for external review. At triage the editor checks that the manuscript:

• falls within the journal’s scope and fits a recognised article type;
• meets basic ethical requirements (research-ethics approval and informed consent where applicable, appropriate declarations, and no evidence of misconduct);
• is accompanied by the relevant EQUATOR reporting-guideline checklist (for example, PRISMA 2020 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses);
• includes the data, analysis code and reproducibility materials required for its article type — the E156 evidence capsule where applicable — so that the work can be independently checked.

Manuscripts that are out of scope, incomplete, or that fall below the journal’s threshold may be returned to the authors or rejected without external review (a “desk decision”). Authors are normally notified of the triage outcome promptly.

2. Review model

Synthēsis operates single-anonymised peer review: reviewers are told the identity of the authors, but authors are not told the identity of the reviewers unless a reviewer chooses to sign their report. Reviewers must treat every manuscript as confidential and declare any competing interest before accepting an invitation.

3. Number and type of reviewers

A manuscript sent for external review is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. For meta-analyses and other quantitative syntheses, an additional statistical or methodological reviewer is sought to assess the analysis, the risk-of-bias assessment and the reproducibility of the reported numbers. The editor may seek further opinions where reviews conflict or where specialist input is required.

4. Editorial decisions

After considering the reviews, the handling editor reaches one of the following decisions:

• Accept — suitable for publication as it stands or with only trivial changes;
• Minor revision — small changes are required and re-review is not usually needed;
• Major revision — substantive changes are required and the revised manuscript will normally be returned to reviewers;
• Reject — not suitable for publication in Synthēsis.

Decisions are based on the validity, methodological soundness, clarity and reproducibility of the work, and not on perceived novelty alone. Final responsibility for every decision rests with the editors.

5. Submissions by editors and editorial-board members

Editors and members of the editorial board may submit their own work to Synthēsis, but they are never involved in any editorial decision about their own manuscripts. Such submissions are assigned to an independent handling editor with no competing interest, and the authoring editor is given no access to the peer-review workflow, reviewer identities or correspondence relating to their submission. These manuscripts are held to the same standards as any other, and the arrangement is recorded to preserve an audit trail.

6. Appeals and complaints

Authors who believe a decision rested on a factual error or a misunderstanding may appeal in writing to the editorial office, setting out the specific grounds. An appeal is considered by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision; the original decision may be upheld, further review may be sought, or the decision may be reconsidered. Full details of how to appeal a decision or raise a concern are set out on the Complaints and Appeals page. Complaints about the conduct of the editorial or review process are handled in line with the COPE guidance.

7. Review timelines

Synthēsis aims to be prompt while protecting the quality of review. The journal targets an initial triage decision within about one week of submission; a first decision after external review within about three weeks for short formats such as the E156 micro-publication and the Short Meta-Analysis; and within about six weeks for long-form articles. Actual times depend on reviewer availability and the complexity of the work, and authors are notified if a review is taking longer than expected.

8. Publication of peer-review history

Synthēsis does not currently publish reviewer reports or the peer-review history alongside articles, and review is single-anonymised by default. Reviewers may choose to sign their reports. The journal may introduce optional open peer review in future; any such change will be announced in advance and applied only with the agreement of the authors and reviewers concerned.

9. Reviewer conduct and recognition

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, evidence-based assessments, to declare any competing interest, to maintain confidentiality, and to disclose any use of AI tools in preparing a report. Manuscripts and unpublished data must not be uploaded to AI systems that do not guarantee confidentiality. The journal recognises reviewers’ contributions and supports reviewer credit through ORCID where reviewers opt in.

This policy is reviewed periodically and updated as the journal’s processes develop.