Due to the current COVID-19 situation, our customers may experience some delivery delays. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.

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 be sent anonymised copies of referee comments. Authors are responsible for considering the suggestions and, if they agree, ensuring that necessary amendments are carried out.

Reconsideration: 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.

Back to Information for Authors