Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

The journal operates a double-blind peer review process, meaning that authors and reviewers remain anonymous during the review process, which is expected to be completed in around four weeks. All submissions are initially assessed by an Editor, who decides whether or not the article fits the scope of the journal and is suitable for peer review. Submissions considered suitable are subsequently assigned to one or more independent experts, who assess the article’s clarity, validity, and research methodology.

Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal. The editor will make a recommendation for rejection, minor or major revisions, or acceptance, based on the reviewer reports. The Corresponding Editor will communicate with authors whose work is being considered for publication.

Overall editorial responsibility rests with the journal’s General Editor, who is supported by an expert, operational Editorial Board.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are asked to provide comment on the below topics and guidelines:

  • Content: Does the article fit within the scope of the journal? Is the submission original, relevant and rigorous? Is the author’s depth of understanding of the issues researched adequate? Are the sources and references adequate? Has the existing knowledge base been explored and built upon? Are the chosen methodologies appropriate and have they and the evidential base been appropriately used? Does the conclusion reflect the argument in the main body text and bring something new to the debate?
  • Structure and argument: Does the abstract summarise the arguments in a succinct and accurate way? Is the manuscript logically structured and do the arguments flow coherently? Is there enough reference to methodology in the introduction and are the arguments fully evidenced and substantiated? Does the introduction signpost the arguments in the logical way and does the conclusion adequately summarise them?
  • Figures/tables: Does the author’s use of tables, charts, figures or maps illustrate the arguments and support the evidential base? Is the quality of the formatting and presentation adequate?
  • Formatting: Does the submitted file adhere to the general author guidelines listed for the journal? Are the citations and references formatted to house-style?
  • Language: Is the text well written and jargon free? Please comment on the quality of English and need for grammatical improvement.

Competing Interests and Ethical Requirements

To ensure transparency, all authors, reviewers and editors are required to declare any interests that could compromise, conflict or influence the validity of the publication. Competing Interests guidelines can be viewed here.

In addition, authors are required to specify funding sources and detail requirements for ethical research in the submitted manuscript (see Author Guidelines).

For a full list of measures to ensure the journal’s commitment to Research Integrity, see here.

Corrections and Retractions

In accordance with guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (where applicable), the Press handles different kinds of error. All articles have their proofs checked prior to publication by the author/editor, which should ensure that content errors are not present. Please contact your editorial manager if an article needs correcting.

Post-publication changes are not permitted to the publication, unless in exceptional circumstances. If an error is discovered in a published article then the publisher will assess whether a Correction paper or Retraction is required. Please contact the editor for the full Correction/Retraction policy.

Section Policies

Editorial

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Research

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Essays

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Reflections

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Reviews

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Quick links