This journal uses a double-blind peer review model. This means that the identities of both the peer reviewers and the authors are kept hidden.
Description of the Peer-Review Process
All submissions are acknowledged by email. Submissions are initially considered by the Editor-In-Chief or Deputy Editor for suitability for peer-review. Submissions selected for peer-review are sent to three anonymous outside peer-reviewers. Where one or more peer-reviewers recommend acceptance or acceptance after revision, all peer-reviews are sent to the corresponding author, with an invitation to revise the paper.
If the author chooses to revise the paper, the revised paper should be accompanied by a detailed cover letter responding to each comment made by each peer-reviewer, indicating precisely how the revision deals with each comment, or why the author disagrees with or cannot incorporate specific comments.
Each peer-reviewer will then receive the revised paper, cover letter and comments of the other peer-reviewers. After the peer-reviewers' further comments have been received, a final decision about publication will be made.
The editorial process may vary from the above under certain circumstances, at the discretion of the Editor-In-Chief or Deputy Editor.
Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review
The journal follows COPE guidance on peer review, and Cambridge’s own ethics in peer review policies. No person is permitted to take any role in the peer-review of a paper in which they have a real or perceived interest. Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in nature, and should be raised with the Editors in case of any uncertainty.
The editorial assessment of papers authored and submitted by the journal Editor or Editorial Board members will be handled by Editors unaffiliated with the author or institution, and monitored carefully to ensure there is no peer review bias.
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.
Other Modes of Review
Some guidance on statistical matters for authors is provided by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2006; 2010) and Bailar & Mosteller (1998). Notwithstanding this guidance, statistical review may be required for certain papers, and this will be arranged by the Journal editors where indicated. Other, more specialist forms of peer-review may also be required on occasion, and these, too, will be arranged by the Journal editors where indicated.