Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

All submissions are initially assessed by the journal editorial team who decides whether or not the article fits the scope of the journal and is suitable for peer review. Submissions considered suitable are assigned to one or more independent experts, who assess the article for clarity, validity, and sound methodology.

The journal operates a double-blind peer review process, meaning that authors and reviewers remain anonymous for the review process to external reviewers. The review period is expected to take around five to eight weeks. Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal.

Based on the reviewer reports the journal Editors will make a recommendation for rejection, minor or major revisions, or acceptance. Overall editorial responsibility rests with the journal’s Editors-in-Chief, who are supported by an expert, international Editorial Board.

 

Reviewer Guidelines

The journal operates a two-stage, double-blind peer review process. The author and reviewer should be anonymous at all stages of the review.

General guide to aid the review:

  • General comments and summary of recommendation: Does the article fit within the scope of the journal? 
  • Content: Please consider the originality, relevance and rigour of the submission and the author’s depth of understanding of the issues being researched. Please comment on the adequacy of the author’s referencing and whether or not the existing knowledge base has been explored and built upon. Please comment on methodologies used and their appropriateness, and the author’s use of the evidential base. Does the conclusion reflect the argument in the main body text and bring something new to the debate?
  • Structure and argument: Please consider whether the abstract summarises 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: Please comment on the author’s use of tables, charts, figures or maps – their relevance in terms of illustrating the arguments and supporting the evidential base, the quality of the formatting and presentation.
  • 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. 
Provide comments and suggestions for improvement, if required, with additional references or possible clarification of arguments, etc. You can also add comments to the text of the article and upload your comments, if you see fit.

Section Policies

Research

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Review

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Commentary

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Interview

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Insights

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Intervention

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Practice

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Quick links