Peer Review

All research papers in E-BPJ are peer reviewed under double-blind review, overseen by the Editor-in-Chief and editorial board. Identifying author information is removed from manuscripts before review, where practicable.

Reviewers

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers, chosen for their subject expertise. More reviewers are invited where reviews disagree significantly or specialist assessment is needed.

Before accepting, reviewers must declare any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest involving the authors or their institutions, the conference organisers or sponsors, the editors handling the manuscript, the funders, or any recent collaboration, supervision, employment or personal relationship. Reviewers decline where a conflict could compromise, or appear to compromise, their judgement.

Being on the editorial board, scientific committee or conference organising committee does not by itself prevent someone from reviewing, provided they have no conflict of interest and take no part in the decision on that manuscript. No editor or reviewer evaluates their own manuscript or one by a close collaborator or institutional colleague.

What reviewers assess

1. Topic and alignment: relevance to environment-behaviour or Quality of Life research, with a clear background, aims and objectives.
2. Literature review: how the study relates to existing work and the research gap it addresses, using up-to-date sources.
3. Methodology: a clear, repeatable and justified method, with its limitations acknowledged.
4. Findings: a clear, structured account of the results.
5. Analysis and discussion: interpretation linked to the aims, the literature and relevant theory.
6. Conclusions and recommendations: the study's contribution, recommendations and future research.
7. Language and presentation: clear academic English, readable figures, and APA referencing.

Decisions

The handling editor makes the decision (accept, minor revisions, major revisions or reject) after considering the reviews, the journal's scope and its standards. Authors receive the reviewers' comments with the decision. Authors may appeal a rejection; see Research Misconduct.

Timeline

For each conference cycle, the journal aims for: initial screening within 1 week of full-paper submission; peer review within 3 to 4 weeks; a first decision within 5 weeks of submission; 2]weeks for authors to revise; and publication within 4 weeks of final acceptance.

Records

For volumes published up to 2026, peer review was administered by email and document-management systems, and the journal keeps those records. The submission date shown in OJS for these volumes is the date the final accepted version was uploaded for production, not the date of first submission. From 1 January 2027, peer review is being moved into OJS, which records each step automatically. The move to OJS does not change the journal's review standards.