The practice of peer review is a process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out on all reputable journals.
Guidelines for Reviewers 1. Reviews should be objective evaluations of the research. If you cannot judge a paper impartially, you should not accept it for review or you should notify the editor as soon as you appreciate the situation. If you have any professional or financial affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, or a history of personal differences with the author(s), you should describe them in your confidential comments.
2. If, as a reviewer, you believe that you are not qualified to evaluate a component of the research, you should inform the editor in your review.
3. Reviews should be constructive and courteous and the reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the author. The reviewer should avoid personal comments
4. The review process is conducted anonymously; wenever reveal the identity of reviewers to authors. The privacy and anonymity provisions of this process extend to the reviewer, who should not reveal his or her identity to outsiders or members of the press. The review itself will be shared only with the author, and possibly with other reviewers and our Board.
5. The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and must be treated as a confidential document. Please destroy all copies of the manuscript after review. Please do not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor. Reviewers should not make personal or professional use of the data or interpretations before publication without the authors' specific permission (unless you are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article).
6. You should be aware of our policies for authors regarding conflict of interest, data availability, and materials sharing.
Dinitial manuscript evaluation
All new submissions are screened for completeness and adherence to the Guide for Authors. Those that pass are then assigned to a Senior Editor for consideration for sending for peer review. Authors of manuscripts rejected at initial evaluation stage will normally be informed within 1 week of receipt.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed within 10 days of assignment to the senior editor.Feedback is provided by the Senior Editor for all manuscripts rejected without review and, where possible, suggestions are made on other suitable publication outlets.
Those manuscripts deemed suitable for peer review are passed to at least 2 expert referees for review.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate a manuscript for:
• originality and significance of contribution
• interest to social scientists and/or practitioners
• international relevance
• coverage of appropriate existing literature
• adequacy of methodology, analysis and interpretation
• clear, concise and jargon-free writing style
Reviewers are asked to provide anonymous comments to the author and are also given the option of providing confidential comments to the editor. The comments to the author are also made available to other reviewers of the manuscript.Reviewers are not expected to correct or copy edit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.
The Chief Editor is responsible for the decision to reject or recommend the manuscript for publication. This decision will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees.