Peer-review Process

This journal adheres to a combination of open peer-review and double anonymous peer-review processes as follows:

Initially, all papers are first reviewed by an editorial committee consisting of three or more members of the editorial team to ensure their appropriateness and relevance to the framework of the journal. The prime purpose at this stage is to decide whether to send a paper for peer review and to provide a rapid decision on those that are not suitable. Papers which do not meet basic standards or are unlikely to be published, irrespective of a positive peer review—for example, because their novel contribution is insufficient or the relevance to the discipline is unclear—may be rejected at this point. This is done to avoid delays for authors who may wish to seek publication elsewhere. Manuscripts are also excluded by the editors if there are major faults in the research methodology. Authors can expect a decision from this stage within two weeks of submission.

Manuscripts that go forward are handled anonymously during the peer-review process, where comments are discussed in weekly editorial sessions. Following the initial review, the reviews are sent to the corresponding authors for proposed modifications, and the revised manuscript is then peer-reviewed for a second time by one or two external reviewers. We aim to complete the review process within six weeks of the decision to review, although occasionally delays do happen and authors should allow at least eight weeks from submissions before contacting the journal.

In addition to the double anonymous review, this journal incorporates an open peer-review element. If the reviewers consent, the summary of their peer review report will be published along with their names. This approach aims to enhance transparency and accountability in the review process.

The Chief Editor reserves the right to the final decision regarding the acceptance of manuscripts.