About Reviewing Agreement
Agreeing to Review
We ask first that a prospective reviewer feels competent to review the manuscript. If one has been sent an invitation to review, our database indicates that the individual is an expert in the relevant field. However, the editorial staff may not know a prospective reviewer’s background intimately. Thus a prospective reviewer should only accept an invitation if he/she feels indeed qualified and competent to review the manuscript in question. Reviewing an article takes time. A thorough review can take three to five hours. The prospective reviewer should consider whether or not he/she has sufficient time before the deadline stipulated in the invitation. If the review cannot be completed in time, the prospective reviewer should notify the journal as soon as possible. It is much better to decline an invitation rather than ignore it so other reviewers may be expeditiously sought. If a reviewer will be unable to complete reviews for an extended period, we strongly recommend she/he update their unavailable dates from their reviewer account. We strive to minimize the time from submission to the first decision letter and appreciate it if an invitation is answered promptly, even if it is to decline.
A reviewer must assure the editorial board that he/she does not have any conflict of interest that should preclude him/her from doing the review, such as working closely with one of the authors, participating in prior publications with an author; or having a professional or financial interest in the manuscript. Not all conflicts of interest will necessarily disqualify a reviewer. Full disclosure to the editor of the particular circumstances will allow the editor to make an informed and reasonable decision. If a prospective reviewer has any questions concerning a possible conflict of interest, he/she should contact the journal.
Reviews must be done in strict confidence. The journal is a single-blind journal. Manuscripts under review may not be disclosed to a third party. If a reviewer wishes to solicit an opinion from colleagues, he/she should let the editorial staff know beforehand. We generally welcome additional reviews and comments, but permission should be sought first. The primary reviewer must be aware that whoever else is involved through them will also need to keep the review process completely confidential. Under no circumstances should reviewers contact one of the authors. Also, reviewers must not use any information in the article they review to their advantage without proper disclosure and citation. Reviewers should contact the journal if they would like to contact the authors or if they are interested in using any of the material they have reviewed.
The editor/theme issue editor nominates at least four independent referees. As soon as a referee has agreed, she/he receives the manuscript without the names of the authors and their affiliations (double-blind peer-review process).
Once at least two independent referee reports have been received, the Journal Office Editor contacts the editor/theme issue editor to read these reports and to make a decision. In addition to acceptance/rejection, the editor/theme issue editor can request technical corrections (no further review), minor revisions (further review by editor/theme issue editor only), as well as major revisions (further review by referees and editor/theme issue editor).
The Journal Office Editor informs the author of the manuscript about the decision and provides a link to the reports of the editor/theme issue editor and the referees, which do not contain the names of the referees (double-blind peer-review process). The peer-review process of each manuscript is summarized in the manuscript records. Topical editors/theme issue editors, authors, and referees have access to parts that concern them.
About Reviewing Agreement
- importance of the subject;
- originality of the approach;
- soundness of the scholarship;
- degree of interest to our readership;
- clarity of structure and organization;
- strength of the argument;
- writing style.
- What might be gained from reading the paper? Is that made clear from the outset?
- Is the aim of the paper clearly stated and appropriately motivated?
- Has the work been set in the appropriate context, for instance, by providing sufficient background and relevant references?
- Is the overall approach suitable to the task at hand?
- Are the methods chosen appropriate for the collection and analysis of empirical material?
- Do the conclusions follow from material and analysis provided?
- What are the implications of the conclusions for the current state of knowledge within this particular field of inquiry?