Every submission is first read and discussed by the Journal editors at our monthly editorial meeting. We generally make one of three decisions at this stage, either: send the article out for review; request further changes of the author before the article will be sent for review (for example, developing the article); or reject the submission (often at this stage because an article will be beyond the scope of the journal). 

If an article is approved by the co-editors, it will be assigned to one of our co-editors who will send the submission to three referees who are independent of the Journal through ScholarOne (though this may include members of the editorial board, former editors or authors who have recently published in the journal). This is double-anonymous review - ie: the referees do not know the author's identity and they do not know the referees. We ask referees to return reports within two months, though the whole review process can take up to six months. 

The co-editors then discuss the submission considering the referees' comments at our monthly editorial meeting. Referees may recommend rejecting the article, revising and resubmitting it, or accepting it with varying levels of alterations. If the Journal proceeds with the article, we request authors make alterations in line with these recommendations, which are then considered by the co-editors at a subsequent editorial board before eventual acceptance of the article.

Appeals

To appeal an editorial decision, contact the Editor and specify the reason for your appeal. Your appeal will be reviewed by the Editor. The final decision regarding your appeal will rest with this Editor.

Appeals should be based on rational arguments and should refer to a specific manuscript in question. New submissions take priority over appeals, so it may take a substantial period of time for the journal to reach a conclusion about your appeal.