• Overview of the peer-review process ⟩
• Responsibilities of reviewers ⟩
• Responsibilities of the journal and its editors ⟩

Overview of the peer-review process

This journal operates a single-anonymized review process (the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author). All contributions will be initially assessed by an editor for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of one independent expert reviewer to assess the scientific quality of the paper. The editors are responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The editors' decisions are final. Editors are not involved in decisions about papers which they have written themselves. Details of the peer-review process follow.

Responsibilities of reviewers

Objectivity

Judgments should be objective and well considered. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with any participant.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must retain confidentiality with respect to the reviewed article. Reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors or third parties.

Advising

Reviewers should be alert for additional resources or information that could be brought to the author's attention for improvement of the article.

Responsibilities of the journal and its editors

The governance structure of the journal and its acceptance procedures are transparent and designed to ensure the highest quality of published material. Business concerns are not allowed to compromise intellectual and ethical standards. The editor(s)-in-chief make the final decision on a submitted manuscript after the manuscript has been proposed for publication and discussed by the Editorial Board. The information-gathering process is open to the whole Editorial Board throughout. Specifically:

1. Upon submission, an author suggests relevant members of the Editorial Board.

2. The paper is typically handled by the editor(s)-in-chief. A paper may be reassigned to any member of the Editorial Board (for example, if another editor is better suited or there is a conflict of interest).

3. The editor(s)-in-chief can reject a paper that seems unlikely to meet the journal's standards, without assigning it to a handling editor.

4. An editor can quickly recommend to the full Editorial Board rejection of a paper that seems unlikely to meet the journal's standards. Experts may optionally be consulted for a general opinion on whether the standards are likely to be met. A paper that is not rejected at that stage is then sent out for one or more referee reports. The handling editor may elect to serve as a referee if the paper falls within the appropriate area of specialization.

5. The handling editor may at any time request that the author(s) submit a revision (for example, to take into account a referee's comments). This does not imply that the paper will be accepted if the revision is made.

6. The handling editor considers opinions of members of the editorial board, the referees, and the quality of the revision (if the manuscript is revised), and recommends rejection, acceptance, or further revision.

7. The final decision rests with the editor(s)-in-chief.