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 may decide, on the basis of their first reading, to recommend that the manuscript be rejected. If they proceed, they read the manuscript carefully, noting strengths and weaknesses. Finally, 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 considers the reviews with the assistance of the editorial committee in order to decide whether to accept or decline the manuscript. At the discretion of the committee, the editor may arrange a third peer review. The decision of whether to accept the manuscript subject to revisions or reject it is made by the editorial committee, normally within four months of the receipt of the manuscript.
The editor conveys the decision of the editorial committee to the author(s), with suggested revisions arising from the reviewer reports. The reviewers also are advised of the decision. If the revisions are significant, the reviewers may be asked to vet the next to final draft.