• 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 Editorial Board makes the final decision on a submitted manuscript after the manuscript has been proposed for publication by an Editor (member of the Editorial Board). The proposing Editor must explicitly endorse the paper's scientific content. The information-gathering process is open to the whole Editorial Board throughout. Specifically:

1. Upon submission, an author suggests a member of the Editorial Board to be the article's handling editor.

2. The paper is assigned by one of the editor(s)-in-chief to a member of the Editorial Board. The assignee becomes the handling editor of the paper. A paper may be reassigned (for example, if the first assignee does not wish to handle it).

3. The editor(s)-in-chief can recommend to the full Editorial Board rejection of a paper that seems unlikely to meet the journal's standards, without assigning it to a handling editor.

4. The handling 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 makes a recommendation to the full Editorial Board with justification explaining the reasoning and the standards which are being used.

7. If the recommendation is rejection, a week is allowed for objections.

8. After a recommendation to accept comes a two-week period of discussion and voting. All members of the Editorial Board are encouraged to make comments and/or vote. Until a final decision is made, it is possible to change one's vote or add further comments by simply voting again.

9. The final decision rests with the editor(s)-in-chief, after the board discussion and waiting period.