Pre-check

‘CrossLink Studies’ implements a thorough and transparent evaluation process managed by scholars and researchers to ensure the highest standards of quality. This process is designed to be quick, comprehensive, and equitable for all participants. In the majority of journals from CrossLink Studies, the review procedure involves a single-blind method where the submission is evaluated by no fewer than two independent reviewers, culminating in an ultimate verdict of acceptance or rejection by the Editor-in-Chief or a delegated scholarly editor sanctioned by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief oversees the scholarly integrity of the publication process, which encompasses decisions on manuscript acceptance, sanctioning of guest editors and themes for compilations such as Special Issues and Topical Collections, in addition to the recruitment of new members to the Editorial Board.

Pre-check

 The initial evaluation phase is divided into two primary components: a technical review conducted by the Editorial Office and an academic review undertaken by an academic editor. Right after a manuscript is submitted, the Managing Editor from the journal undertakes a technical review to evaluate:

• The manuscript's compatibility with the journal, specific section, Special Issue, Topic, or Topical Collection;
• Compliance with high standards of research quality and ethics;
• The level of rigor necessary for advancing to the next review phase.

Following this, the submission is forwarded to an academic editor (such as the Editor-in-Chief for standard submissions, the Guest Editor for Special Issue submissions, the Topic Editor for Topic submissions, the Collection Editor for Topical Collection submissions, or an Editorial Board member in instances of conflict of interest or with the Editor-in-Chief's approval) to conduct an academic review. This stage involves evaluating the manuscript's fit within the journal's focus and its scientific merit, including the appropriateness of references and the validity of methodologies used. Based on this evaluation, academic editors may reject the manuscript outright, suggest revisions prior to peer review, or proceed to the peer review stage and propose potential reviewers.

To prevent conflicts of interest, Guest Editors, Topic Editors, and Collection Editors are restricted from making decisions about their own manuscripts submitted to their managed Special Issues, Topics, or Topical Collections. In such cases, an Editorial Board member is designated for decision-making responsibilities. Consequently, these editors are barred from involving themselves in the review process of their submissions, except in their capacity as authors. This restriction also applies to Editors-in-Chief and other Editorial Board members concerning their own submissions.