Peer Review Process

Shipping & Navigation applies a rigorous peer-review process as a core quality assurance mechanism. The Journal follows a double-blind peer-review model: the identity of the Author(s) is not disclosed to Reviewers, and the identity of Reviewers is not disclosed to Author(s). Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent expert Reviewers.

Submission and confidentiality
All submissions are treated as confidential documents. Access to the manuscript is limited to the Editor-in-Chief, editorial staff involved in processing the manuscript, and invited Reviewers. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the manuscript content beyond the purpose of peer review without explicit editorial permission.

Initial editorial assessment (desk review)
Upon receipt, the Editor-in-Chief performs a preliminary assessment of the manuscript’s suitability and scientific quality, including relevance to the Journal scope and compliance with author guidelines. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage (desk rejection) if they are clearly out of scope or do not meet minimum scholarly standards.

Plagiarism / similarity screening
To protect research integrity, the Journal may screen submitted manuscripts for text similarity and potential plagiarism using appropriate similarity-checking tools and editorial assessment. If significant unethical overlap or plagiarism is identified, the manuscript may be rejected and the Author(s) informed.

Reviewer selection, independence, and conflicts of interest
If the manuscript passes the initial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Associate Editor manages the peer-review process and communication with Reviewers and Author(s).
At least two Reviewers with relevant competence are involved to the peer-review process of the submitted manuscript. Reviewers must be free of conflicts of interest (competitive, collaborative, institutional, or personal) that could bias their judgement. If a conflict exists, the Reviewer must immediately declare it and decline the invitation.

Review criteria
Reviewers provide an objective, evidence-based assessment with clear arguments and actionable comments. In particular, they are asked to evaluate: originality/novelty; significance and potential impact; methodological soundness; validity of results and conclusions; clarity of structure and presentation; adequacy of references and attribution; ethical concerns; and overall suitability for the Journal. Reviewers should also flag missing key citations and any substantial similarity/overlap with other works known to them.

Possible reviewer recommendations and editorial decisions
Based on reviewer reports, the Handling Editor makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. Decisions typically fall into one of the following categories:
– Accept;
– Minor revision;
– Major revision (resubmission for further evaluation);
– Reject outright (e.g., insufficient novelty, major technical or interpretational problems).

Revision procedure and response letter
When revisions are requested, Author(s) must submit (a) a revised manuscript and (b) a point-by-point response letter indicating how each reviewer comment was addressed (or providing a reasoned rebuttal when a comment is not followed). If the revision does not adequately address the core criticisms, the Editors may reject the manuscript without further external review. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original Reviewers for re-evaluation, especially after major revision.

Final decision and editorial responsibility
The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief may consult other Editors or Reviewers when needed, but editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit, reviewer reports, and research integrity considerations.

Appeals (author protest) and additional review
If Author(s) disagree with a decision, they may submit a reasoned appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals must address specific points in the decision and/or reviews. Appeals are handled by the Editor-in-Chief and may involve an additional independent review or consultation with Editorial Board members.

Plagiarism and Similarity Check Policy

Screening
All manuscripts are screened using similarity-detection software (https://strikeplagiarism.com) prior to acceptance. The purpose is to identify potential plagiarism, redundant publication, and improper reuse.

What is considered unacceptable:
– Verbatim copying without quotation and citation.
– Paraphrasing substantial parts without citation.
– Self-plagiarism / redundant publication without transparency.
– Manipulation of citations intended to inflate metrics.

Editorial actions
Where concerns arise, the journal may:
– Request clarification and/or revised text with proper citation.
– Reject the manuscript.
– Inform authors’ institutions or funders in serious cases.
– Publish corrections/retractions post-publication if necessary.

Retraction Policy and Procedure

General Provisions
Retraction is the official withdrawal of an already published article from the scholarly record in cases where breaches of academic integrity or substantial errors are identified.
The purpose of retraction is to preserve trust in scholarly publications and to protect readers from unreliable information.

Grounds for Retraction
An article may be retracted in the following cases:
– plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or data fabrication is identified;
– duplicate or multiple publication of the same material without proper referencing;
– substantial errors in data or methodology that render the results unreliable;
– violations of ethical standards in the conduct of the research;
– undisclosed use of artificial intelligence to generate the main content of the article;
– other serious cases of misconduct as determined by the Editorial Board.

Retraction Initiators
A retraction request may be submitted by:
– the article’s authors;
– reviewers;
– the Editorial Board;
– external researchers or readers who have identified potential misconduct.

Retraction Procedure
– Upon receiving a substantiated allegation, the Editorial Board conducts a fact-check and assessment.
– The authors are notified officially and given an opportunity to provide an explanation.
– A decision on retraction is made by the Editorial Board by majority vote.
– If misconduct or serious errors are confirmed, the Journal publishes an official retraction notice in the next available issue and on the Journal website.

Form of the Retraction Notice
– The notice includes the article title, authors’ names, the reason for retraction, and a link to the original publication.
– The original article remains openly accessible but is clearly marked with a “RETRACTED” watermark or an equivalent note on the title page of the PDF.
– Retraction information is submitted to international databases and services (e.g., Crossref, Index Copernicus), where applicable.

Republication
Retracted articles cannot be republished in the Journal.
Authors may submit a new manuscript only after all issues have been fully resolved and provided that the new submission is substantively different from the retracted work.