Uncertainty Discourse and Applications (UDA) uses double-anonymous peer review. This page explains the sequence from submission to decision and should be read with the journal's Peer Review Policies and Guide for Authors.

Initial editorial assessment

The editorial office checks the files, metadata, declarations, and preparation for anonymous review. An editor assesses the manuscript's fit with UDA, originality, methodological suitability, clarity of contribution, and research integrity. Incomplete submissions may be returned for completion. Work outside the scope, insufficiently developed, or raising unresolved integrity concerns may be declined before external review. Passing this assessment does not imply acceptance.

Independent peer review

Original research articles, methodological contributions, and review or survey articles undergo double-anonymous peer review and may be accepted only after substantive reports from at least two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise. Authors and reviewers are not identified to each other in the review materials. Authors should submit an anonymized manuscript and a separate title page, as explained in the Guide for Authors.

Reviewers assess the validity and contribution of the work, the evidence supporting its claims, transparency, limitations, and reporting. Review articles are also assessed for the quality of their question, selection or search approach where applicable, and critical synthesis. The editor may obtain further reviews when reports conflict or additional expertise is needed.

Editorial decision and revision

Reviewers advise the editor; they do not decide acceptance. The editor considers the reports and the manuscript and communicates a decision with reasons. Outcomes include rejection, a request for major or minor revision, and acceptance. A revision request is not a promise of acceptance.

Revisions should include a response to every substantive comment, identify the changes made, and explain any disagreement with supporting reasons. The decision letter sets a deadline appropriate to the work required; authors should request an extension before it expires if needed. Revised work may return to reviewers, and further revision may be requested when justified.

Independence and confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts and withdraw from involvement when impartial assessment cannot be maintained. A conflicted editor must arrange independent handling. Manuscripts, reports, and correspondence remain confidential; comments intended for authors are communicated without revealing reviewer identities. Any disclosure necessary for an integrity investigation is limited to the appropriate people and purpose.

Reviewers must follow the Guide for Reviewers, including its confidentiality and AI provisions. AI cannot replace independent scholarly judgment or make an editorial decision.

Appeals and concerns

Authors may email uda@reapress.com with the manuscript ID, decision, grounds for appeal, and relevant evidence. Grounds include a material misunderstanding, a substantial procedural error, or evidence that was not considered. Disagreement alone is insufficient. An uninvolved editor or another appropriately qualified, unconflicted person assesses the appeal; reviewer identities remain protected. The outcome may confirm the decision or lead to further assessment. Complaints about conduct are addressed through the Complaint procedure.

Timing and communication

UDA does not guarantee a fixed review or publication time. Timing depends on the manuscript, reviewer availability, and revisions. Authors can follow progress through the submission system and contact the editorial office for a status update.

Last reviewed: 9 November 2026.