Peer Review Policy

Basic policy

All submissions to this journal are first reviewed for completeness and then sent to be assessed by an editor who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review. Where an Editor is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to oversee peer review. Editors will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the Editor themself may result in the manuscript being rejected. Authors receive peer review reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript.

Diversity

Our publisher is committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and we strive for a diverse demographic representation of peer reviewers. Editors are strongly encouraged to consider geographical regions, gender identities, racial/ethnic groups, and other groups when inviting peer reviewers.

Guidance

The primary purpose of peer review is to provide the Editor with the information needed to reach a fair, evidence-based decision that adheres to the journal’s editorial criteria. Review reports should also help authors revise their papers so that they may be accepted for publication. Reports accompanied by a recommendation to reject the paper should explain the major weaknesses of the research; this will help the authors prepare their manuscript for submission to a different journal.

Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers.  Confidential comments to the Editor are welcome, but they must not contradict the main points in the report for the authors. Peer reviewers should assess papers exclusively against the journal’s criteria for publication. 

Before you submit your report, please take a moment to read it through and put yourself in the place of the authors. How would you feel if you received this report? Would the tone offend you? Is it courteous and professional?  Are there unnecessary personal remarks or antagonistic comments about the authors or their competitors? Please note that the Editor reserves the right to remove any inappropriate language from your report.

The following conventions should be respected:

  • Reviewers should review the journal's peer review policy before revealing their role as reviewers.
  • Reviews should be conducted objectively.
  • Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate, as are defamatory remarks. 
  • Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references. 
  • Reviewers should declare any potential competing interests.
  •  Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts with which they believe they have a competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
  • Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work.
  • Any reviewer who wants to pass a peer review invitation on to a colleague must contact the journal in the first instance.

Concerns relating to these points or any aspect of the review process should be raised with the editorial team or publisher.

It is publisher policy to remain neutral with respect to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations, and the naming conventions used in maps and affiliations are left to the discretion of authors. Peer reviewers should not, therefore, request authors to make any changes to such unless it is critical to the clarity of the academic content of a manuscript.

Our journals are committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication. We believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the research community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the agreed-upon number of days. If reviewers anticipate a delay, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.