Peer-Review Process

 

Submitted manuscripts are sent to two or three independant peer reviewers, unless they are either out of scope or below threshold for the journal. These manuscripts will generally be reviewed by experts with the aim of reaching a first decision as soon as possible. The journal uses the double anonymity standard for the peer-review process. Reviewers do not have to sign their reports and they do not know who the aouthos(s) of the submitted manuscript are.

We ask all authors to provide the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of at least four potential reviewers of their manuscript. These should be experts in their field of study, who will be able to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript. Any suggested peer reviewers should not have published with any of the authors of the manuscript within the past five years and should not be members of the same research institution. Members of the Editorial Board of the journal can be nominated. Suggested reviewers will be considered alongside potential reviewers identified by their publication record or recommended by Editorial Board members.

Our goal is to provide a publication process that is objective, efficient, timely, and pleasant. We are exploring various options for addressing the problem, and we need your help. Please help us by taking the following steps:

1. If you are asked to review a manuscript, please respond quickly. This will shorten the process. Delays in review often begin with a tardy response to the request for a review.
2. Please do your best to say "Yes." If you do, please make sure to meet the deadline or explicitly request an extension to a specific date. We are increasingly facing delays because of chasing colleagues who missed the deadline, sometimes by many weeks.
3. If you are not able to do the review, do not have the time to provide an in-depth review, or do not think you can meet the deadline, then please say "No" right away and suggest one or more alternate potential reviewers.
4. Involve your advanced graduate students in the review process while maintaining the confidentiality of the process. Explain that this is an important part of their professional duties.
5. Advocate to administrators the value of reviewer service at every opportunity, explain that it is a performance-related part of your job that helps keep you up-to-date, and ask for it to be part of your annual evaluation.

These are simple steps, but they will greatly help reduce delay and frustration.