Peer Review & Editorial Screening Policy

This page explains how Safety.Science evaluates manuscripts through editorial screening and external peer review, and what authors and reviewers can expect.

Safety.Science is an independent, open-access pilot journal for Integrated Safety (Integraal Veiligheid). In line with its pilot character, the journal uses a lightweight editorial screening model, which can include invited peer review where appropriate.

Safety.Science applies different review pathways depending on article type and journal phase. Editorials and conceptual position papers may undergo editorial review. Research and substantive theoretical contributions are normally subject to invited external peer review. Review pathways are documented transparently. All peer-reviewed articles are clearly labelled. Non-peer-reviewed content is transparently identified on the article page.

When the Editor-in-Chief is an author, editorial decisions are documented transparently and, where appropriate, supported by invited external review.

Peer Review Summary

Research Articles: normally externally peer reviewed before publication
Conceptual Papers: editorial review and/or external peer review
Short Papers: editorial review and/or external peer review
Case Reflections: editorial review and/or external peer review where appropriate
Methods & Tools papers: normally editorial review and/or external peer review
Work-in-Progress & Open Review Papers: editorial review, open review, or invited review depending on the submission
Editorials: normally editorially reviewed, not externally peer reviewed unless stated

1. Aims of the Review Process

The review and screening process is designed to:

  • Ensure that contributions are clear, accurate and relevant to integrated safety.
  • Support constructive learning between authors, reviewers and readers.
  • Recognise both academic and practice-based expertise.
  • Maintain ethical standards as described in the Publication Ethics policy.

2. Types of Contributions

The journal welcomes a variety of contribution types, including:

  • Short academic notes and conceptual pieces.
  • Case reflections and lessons learned from practice.
  • Methodological notes and tools (e.g. integrated analysis methods).
  • Educational and training insights related to integrated safety.

The level of review may differ slightly per contribution type, but all submissions are screened for clarity, integrity and value to the integrated safety community.

3. Editorial Screening

All submissions are first assessed by the editor or a member of the editorial team. In this initial editorial screening, the journal considers:

  • Relevance to integrated or integral safety.
  • Clarity of problem statement, approach and conclusions.
  • Basic structure (title, abstract, main text, references where appropriate).
  • Compliance with Publication Ethics and ethical standards.

Following editorial screening, manuscripts may be:

  • Accepted with minor editorial changes.
  • Returned to the author with suggestions for revision.
  • Sent for invited peer review (see below).
  • Declined with a brief explanation, if the scope or quality does not fit the journal.

4. Invited Peer Review

For some submissions—especially those introducing new methods, conceptual frameworks or more substantial analyses—the editor may invite one or more reviewers from academia, applied research, safety regions, industry or other relevant domains.

When peer review is used:

  • Reviewers are selected based on relevant expertise in the topic or method.
  • Reviewers are asked to provide constructive, respectful and timely feedback.
  • The default review process in the OJS platform is anonymous reviewer / anonymous author. This means that, where feasible, reviewers do not see author identities and authors do not see reviewer identities. In some contribution types, such as editorials, invited contributions, or open review papers, a different review pathway may be used and will be indicated transparently.
  • Review comments are shared with the authors for possible revision.

Given the pilot character of the journal, not all contributions will go through formal peer review. This will be clearly indicated in editorial introductions or article classifications where relevant.

5. Decision-Making

Final decisions on acceptance, revision or rejection are made by the editor, taking into account:

  • Review reports (where applicable).
  • Relevance to the journal and integrated safety practice.
  • Clarity, coherence and contribution to learning.
  • Ethical and methodological soundness.

6. Conflict of Interest

When the Editor-in-Chief is an author, editorial decisions are documented transparently and, where appropriate, supported by invited external review.

7. Transparency and Evolution of the Policy

As a pilot journal, Safety.Science may refine its review model over time in consultation with its advisory group, authors and readers. Any significant changes to the peer review or editorial screening process will be documented on this page and, where appropriate, communicated in editorials or announcements.

Questions about this policy can be directed to: editor@safety.science.