• Accept.
• Minor Revision.
• Major Revision.
• Reject.

Review process

otstest1 has not yet stated its peer-review model. Submissions are evaluated by the editors, who may seek independent review; the model will be stated here once the journal publishes it.

Publication timelines vary according to manuscript readiness, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and editorial workload.

Editorial screening and decision making

• Editors may desk reject submissions that are out of scope, incomplete, insufficiently anonymised, previously published, ethically deficient, or not ready for review.
• Authors may suggest reviewers, but the journal is not obliged to use them.
• Reviewer recommendations inform the decision but do not determine it.
• The handling editor or Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final editorial decision.

Confidentiality, conflicts, and special issues

• Reviewers must treat manuscripts and review material as confidential.
• Reviewers and editors must declare conflicts and decline or recuse themselves where needed.
• Submissions from editors, board members, guest editors, or close associates are handled by an independent editor with no conflict of interest.
• Special issue submissions follow the same review standards as regular submissions.

Appeals

Appeals should be sent to iwickens@gmail.com with an evidence-based rationale. Appeals should identify a procedural error, factual misunderstanding, or evidence that may have affected the decision.