Double-Anonymous Peer Review

JGH adheres to a double-anonymous peer-review policy, in which the identity of the reviewer and the author are concealed from both parties. On occasion, and by specific request from the reviewer only, the identity of the reviewer may be revealed to the author. The responsibility for recognizing unfair assessments from reviewers and potential competing interests thus lies with the editors.

The editors seek to keep turn-around times as short as possible. Reviewers are granted six weeks for their reports. Editorial decisions are ideally based on three reviewer reports, but are never taken on the basis of fewer than two reports. In their decision letter the editors will weigh the comments of the reviewers and offer advice on how to deal with possible contradictions between their reports.

Guarantees of publication are never granted before authors meet all our requirements, including implementation of the JGH house style. Please note that this has recently changed to the Chicago Manual of Style (see the JGH style guide for further details). Upon acceptance, papers will be copy-edited and published online individually through CUP’s ‘first view’. All published articles will later be allocated to an issue, repaginated and printed. Please note that the article will be considered published once available through ‘first view’ and it will not be possible to make further changes, except through published errata or corrigenda, beyond that point.

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.