In order to ensure a high scientific quality the CPSL uses a new Peer-Review System, which has the benefits that all researchers can have an impact on the contributions while a baseline standard is set by an established institution. All submitted papers will be reviewed in a two-stage peer review process by experienced scientists of cooperating research institutes (level 1) as well as authors of other submitted papers (level 2). This ensures, through the first step, a constant quality of the papers and reviews according to demanding standards as well as, through the second step, an influence of all participants on the quality of the papers. Each participant therefore undertakes to review a paper by another author according to defined criteria and to prepare an expert opinion. All reviews are monitored by the editors to ensure the high quality of the papers and reviews.

Peer-Review Process

Pre Review
Double Peer Review


As the author of a submitted paper, you will automatically be included in level 2 of our Peer-Review process to review a paper by another author. For this purpose, you will receive an e-mail with the paper to be reviewed as well as brief instructions and further information no later than two weeks after the submission deadline. In parallel, another author will be asked to review your paper. After you have completed the review, it will be released by the CPSL team and forwarded to the author. Please note that the reviews for your own paper will not be available until you have completed the review for the other author. You will be informed about the availability of your reviews via mail. If you have not been assigned a paper for review three weeks after the submission deadline, please contact the CPSL team.


Reviewers should evaluate the papers based on the manuscript’s merits. Age, race, colour, ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation and institutional affiliation must not influence the review. The reviewers must complete their work within the timeframe set by the editor (see Reviewers Deadline). Reviewers must also refuse to review any manuscript for which they have a conflict of interest.
Although a critical evaluation of the manuscript is appropriate, the reviewers should formulate their comments in a positive tone. The reviewer’s comments should be clear and recommend a particular course of action. The reviewers should pay particular attention to good practice in science and citation. In addition to their remarks, reviewers should make a general recommendation for rejection, revision and resubmission or acceptance. Information in manuscripts is confidential until the manuscript appears in print. Reviewers must refrain from seizing information in unpublished or rejected manuscripts for their own purposes.


The editors have full and final authority to decide whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected. Editors manage the communication of manuscript information with reviewers and authors as needed. The identity of the reviewer is not disclosed. Manuscripts and their content are otherwise confidential. Editors use software tools to identify unoriginal text and combine their own comments with those of the reviewers. The editor can accept the paper without changes, ask the authors to revise and resubmit the document, or reject the paper. The editors communicate the results of the review in a timely manner. The editors reserve the right to edit, refine or shorten the manuscript as necessary.


Review template