The Review Process

Initial review: All submissions are first considered by the Managing Editor to determine if they are suitable, consulting others, including members of the Editorial Board, as necessary.

Assignment: Having determined suitability, the Managing Director informs the Board of Directors and is responsible for sending the complete, or near-complete, manuscript to at least two recognized experts for review.

Peer review: Referees are asked to consider the following: (1) overall quality; (2) originality (its contribution to the field); (3) academic standards; and (4) success of synthesis between areas for those submissions purporting to be interdisciplinary. Referees will recommend one of the following options: (1) accept outright for immediate publication; (2) accept subject to minor modification; (3) accept subject to major modification; (4) reject outright. Referees are asked to submit reports within 2-3 months.

Revision: Authors will usually be sent anonymised copies of referee comments. However, after we have made a decision about publication, we do invite our referees, if they wish, to make their name available to the author and the wider community. If they agree, the referee feedback is passed on with their name attached, and they are credited in the book for their work. Authors are responsible for considering the referee's suggestions and ensuring that necessary amendments are carried out.

Recommendation: Revised manuscripts may be returned to Referees or may be assessed solely by the Managing Director (having reference to the review and recommendations by the referees). Recommendation: Based on referee reports and her own assessment, the Managing Director will make a recommendation to the Board of Directors, which has final responsibility for each decision on each submission.