01

The standard

Every submission is screened for scope, completeness, authorship, ethics, registration, reporting standards, data and code availability, conflicts, and whether it can be responsibly hosted. A screened manuscript may be published as a preprint without peer review and must say so prominently on its page, PDF record, and metadata. Work in Kadomony's peer-reviewed track receives at least two relevant independent reviews, with methods or statistics review when needed; reviewers disclose conflicts and protect confidential drafts. Receipt and the screening outcome are confirmed in writing, and neither track carries a promised decision date.

Sources for this section: [1]

02

How it works in practice

Authors in the peer-reviewed track receive consolidated comments and respond point by point with visible changes. The decision is held by a named decision editor for that submission, who has no authorship, collaboration, employment, or personal relationship with the author, and it is an editorial judgement rather than a count of reviewer votes. Where no independent decision editor can be engaged, the peer-reviewed track is not offered for that submission: the work is declined, or published as a preprint under the label stating that no peer review took place. An author may contest a decision in writing; the appeal is heard by someone other than the person who made it where such a person exists, and where none does, the author is told so plainly and the exchange is kept with the submission record. Externally peer-reviewed work links to the specific reviewed version and names the external venue. Acceptance into the Kadomony Zenodo Community is curation and preservation, not peer review. Status changes never silently relabel an earlier version: preprints, reviewed versions, superseded versions, withdrawals, corrections, and retractions remain explicitly connected. Review does not permit fabricated credentials, hidden ghostwriting, or undisclosed AI-generated analysis.

Sources for this section: [1]

Sources

  1. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewersCommittee on Publication Ethics · 2017