Double-Blind Peer Review Policy

All research articles considered suitable after editorial screening will normally undergo double-blind peer review. Author identities will not be disclosed to reviewers and reviewer identities will not be disclosed to authors.

Workflow

Submission and administrative check for completeness, scope and anonymisation.
Editorial screening for relevance, basic scholarly quality, ethical concerns and originality.
Similarity screening where appropriate; similarity reports are interpreted by editors rather than treated as an automatic acceptance/rejection score.
Assignment to normally two independent subject experts who are not part of the manuscript’s authorship team and who have no disqualifying conflict of interest.
Reviewers evaluate originality, scholarship, methodology/argument, evidence, clarity, ethics, references and contribution.
Editorial decision: Accept; Minor Revision; Major Revision; Resubmit for Review; or Reject.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers where necessary.
Final acceptance is made by the authorised Editor/Editor-in-Chief on scholarly grounds.
Copy-editing, author proof and publication follow acceptance.

The journal should not advertise guaranteed acceptance or unrealistically short peer-review times. When a decision is delayed substantially, authors should be informed and allowed to withdraw.

Editorial submissions

If an editor or editorial-board member submits an article, that person must have no role in selecting reviewers or making the decision. The website/article should disclose the independent handling arrangement where appropriate.