Peer Review Guidelines

Double Blind Review Process

The manuscript sent to the reviewers does not identify the author(s). The editor does not reveal the identities of the reviewers to the author(s). The peer review process and reports are confidential. PDF copies of each Word draft and the reviewer comments are kept on file.

The author may propose expert reviewers if they have not been consulted and there is no conflict of interest.

Once the manuscript has been accepted for review, the editor arranges two reviewers who are familiar with scholarship in the field and who don’t have a conflicting interest or bias. The editor provides the potential reviewers with a timeline so they can ascertain their availability. If the potential reviewers decline the review request, they may suggest other potential reviewers.

The reviewers read the manuscript carefully, noting strengths and weaknesses. When they have completed their review, they submit a professional report to the editor, recommending acceptance or rejection, with their reasons and suggestions. A confidential report to the editor must be made if the reviewer suspects a breach of research ethics.

The editor sends the reviews to the author for revisions. When the editor receives the revised article, the editor may accept it for publication or arrange a third peer review, in consultation with the editorial committee. If the revisions are significant, the peer reviewers may be asked to vet the next to final draft before the decision to publish is made.