Editorial and peer review procedures

This journal uses a double-anonymous model of peer review.

New submissions received through the online submission system are first assessed by the Executive Editor to determine if they fit the scope and focus of the journal. When in doubt whether a submission should be taken into further consideration, the Executive Editor consults one or more members of the EC.

After a positive assessment, the Executive Editor will invite two or more relevant expert reviewers via the online peer review system to give their critical assessment of the quality of the submission. Expert reviewers receive an anonymized version of the article and a standardized peer review form. They are asked to make their comment as precise and relevant as possible, leading to a categorization in one of four grades:

• A – Accepted for publication as submitted;
• B – Accepted for publication, on the condition that relatively small revisions are made, the assessment of which lies with the Executive Editor;
• C – Not accepted for publication, but the author is invited to rewrite and resubmit;
• D – Rejected for publication.

The peer review guidelines and process are in compliance with guidelines as offered by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

An EC-meeting is held at least four times a year, in person or via online meeting facilities. Meetings are prepared by the Executive Editor and Editorial Staff, in coordination with the Chair. The Executive Editor and Editorial Assistant are responsible for preparing the agenda and the draft minutes of the meeting. The minutes are assessed and adopted by the EC. During meetings, the EC discusses new submissions to the journal on the basis of the peer review reports solicited by the Executive Editor. On the basis of this discussion, taking into account the comments and decisions advised by the expert reviewers, the EC grades each submission with one out the four possible decisions (A, B, C or D), as described above.

In their comments on submissions, the EC members specify where and why they agree or disagree with the comments and decision advised by the expert reviewers, with special regard to the mission and scope of the journal. On behalf of the EC, and based on the comments by the EC and the expert reviewers, the Executive Editor sends the decision letter to submitting authors. In case the decision of the EC deviates from the advice of the expert reviewers, the Executive Editor gives the arguments why the EC’s decision differs from the advice of expert reviewers. 

Resources 

Introductory resources for peer reviewers can be found on Cambridge Core here.

Ethics

Guidance on ethical peer review can be found on Cambridge Core here.

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.