The governance documents that define how our review process actually works — not marketing copy about rigor, the real commitments and mechanisms behind it.
We publish these because a credential is only worth what stands behind it. If you're deciding whether to trust a review from a journal without an academic institution's name attached, the right response is to show you the standards and process behind it, not just assert they're rigorous. We'll add to this section as more of our governance takes real shape.
One caveat: a small number of internal operational specifics — exact audit ratios, detection thresholds, and similar detail — are deliberately held back from these public versions. Not because the commitments they support aren't real, but because publishing exact thresholds makes it easier to route around the safeguards they're meant to protect.
How we verify that every review reflects a genuine, independent human read — not just an approved AI summary — and what happens if that standard is ever missed.
The actual step-by-step path a submission takes from arrival to publication — including conflict-of-interest recusal and the appeals process for rejected work.
We publish under CC BY 4.0. Authors keep copyright — no transfer agreement, ever. What we're doing to make sure published work stays accessible permanently and reaches further, including DOI/ISSN registration and cross-listing on SSRN.
What happens when an error is found after publication — the difference between a correction and a retraction, and why nothing gets quietly deleted.
