Peer-reviewing process is conducted according to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer-Reviewers ( Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers, COPE guidance ). All submitted manuscripts received by the Editorial Office will be checked whether they are properly prepared and whether the manuscript follows the ethical policies of the journal. Manuscripts that do not fit the journal's ethical policy will be rejected before peer review. Manuscripts that are not properly prepared will be returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. After these checks, Editor-in-Chief or the Guest Editor (or an Editorial Board member in case of a conflict of interest) will determine whether the manuscript fits the scope of the journal and whether it is scientifically sound. No judgment on the significance or potential impact of the work will be made at this stage. Reject decisions at this stage will be verified by the Editor-in-Chief.

Editorial Board members may also submit scientific articles to the journal. This, however, may be done in exceptional cases and especially if the topic of the article limits the selection of journals for publication. In such a case, Editorial Board members will make a special effort to make the double-blind review process absolutely transparent, rigorous, and non-biased. This is reflected in a particularly cautious selection of handling editors and reviewers, and by taking additional care that the reviewer is not informed who the author of the paper is. If the paper gets accepted for publication, the final publication may be accompanied by a statement on the transparency of the review process conducted.

The journal uses suitable software to screen article submissions for plagiarism.

Editorial workflow

Peer Review

Once a manuscript passes the initial checks, it will be assigned to at least two independent experts for peer review. The reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to the authors, nor are the authors' identities disclosed to the reviewers. Peer review comments are confidential and will only be disclosed with the express agreement of the reviewer. The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final.

In the case of regular submissions, assistant editors will invite experts. These experts may also include Editorial Board members and Guest Editors of the journal. In the case of a special issue, the Guest Editor will advise on the selection of reviewers.

Potential reviewers suggested by the authors may also be considered. Reviewers should not have published with any of the co-authors during the past five years and should not currently work at one of the institutes of the co-authors of the submitted manuscript.

Reviewers must not recommend citations of work by themselves, by close colleagues, by another author, or from the journal when it is not clearly necessary to improve the quality of the manuscript under review. For more details, reviewers can refer to the following COPE guidelines: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/case/reviewer-requesting-addition-multiple-citations-their-own-work

Reviewers must not use AI or AI-assisted tools (such as ChatGPT) to review submissions or generate peer review reports. Reviewers are solely responsible for the content of their reports, and using AI technologies for this purpose constitutes a breach of peer review confidentiality.

Reviewers should maintain a neutral tone and provide constructive criticism to help the authors improve their work. Derogatory comments will not be tolerated. Reviewers should keep the manuscript's content, including the Abstract, confidential. If the review report does not meet our quality standards, the reviewer may be asked to revise it or discard it.

Editorial Decision and Revision

All the articles, reviews, and communications published in Decision Making Advances go through the peer-review process and receive at least two reviews. The editor will communicate the decision, which will be one of the following:

• Accept after Minor Revisions: The paper is in principle accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are given seven days for minor revisions.
• Reconsider after Major Revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript depends on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point-by-point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be addressed. Usually, only one round of major revisions is allowed. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within fifteen days, and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments.
• Reject and Encourage Resubmission: An article for which additional experiments are needed to support the conclusions will be rejected, and the authors will be encouraged to re-submit the paper once further experiments have been conducted.
• Reject: The article has serious flaws, makes no original contribution, and the paper is rejected with no offer of resubmission to the journal.

All reviewer comments should be responded to in a point-by-point fashion. Where the authors disagree with a reviewer, they must provide a clear response.

Author Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection by sending an e-mail to the Editorial Office of the journal. The appeal must provide a detailed justification, including point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Editor's comments. The Editor-in-Chief of the journal will forward the manuscript and related information (including the identities of the referees) to an Editorial Board member. If no appropriate Editorial Board member is available, the editor will identify a suitable external scientist. The Editorial Board member will be asked to give an advisory recommendation on the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, further peer review, or uphold the original rejection decision. A reject decision at this stage will be final and cannot be revoked.

In the case of a special issue, the Editor-in-Chief will be asked to give an advisory recommendation on the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, further peer review, or uphold the original rejection decision. A reject decision at this stage will be final and cannot be revoked.