Peer review process

This journal is committed to openness and transparency. The Editor will make an initial decision concerning the viability of a potential contribution in terms of the journal’s mission statement, and his decision is final. Contributors who have been accepted are then asked to nominate two possible peer reviewers (with email contact addresses), whose opinions they feel that they would respect and contribute to the work on their texts. Doctoral students should take counsel from their advisors/supervisors. The reviewers are expected to be established authors whose publications are relevant to the proposed topic. The Editor will send one of the nominees a copy of the text along with a request to act as peer reviewer. The nominee is advised to read the text before giving consent and is perfectly free to decline the invitation without giving a reason. Nominees are encouraged to respond promptly and if they are likely to experience difficulties in doing so should inform the Editor.

The reviewer agreeing to the process would comment on the text, send comments directly to the author (copy to the Editor) and, if necessary, engage in an exchange of views. The reviewer is expected to alert the author to errors of fact and weaknesses in argument, making constructive suggestions for improvement. In the event of fundamental concern over the text’s viability for publication, the reviewer is expected to explain that concern to the Editor, who will then relay the explanation to the author with words of advice.

When authors feel that the exchange has reached a satisfactory conclusion they can send the final version of their paper directly to the Editor.

If there should be any disagreement between authors and referees over matters of interpretation, authors would not necessarily be expected  to change their views or arguments because the journal itself can act as a forum for discussion. The Editor believes that the academic community is best served by free and open debate.