Guidelines for reviewers
Open Review Process
Our research and field review articles from Issue 8 (2018) onwards undergo a quality check in the form of open review. This means that the online version of the article is published together with its reviews, and that reviewers’ names are publicly visible. During the review period, which typically lasts between 2 and 6 weeks, the articles are displayed on our website as pre-prints and are shared on social media to encourage comments and feedback. We invite selected reviewers directly via email, and also accept spontaneous reviews, as long as the reviewer fulfils the criteria below.
Selection criteria
- Reviewers need to have academic (PhD or above) or professional experience in the article’s field of study;
- A reviewer cannot have published or closely collaborated with the author of the article in the last 3 years.
Declaration of conflict of interest
Any conflict of interest should be declared by prospective reviewers in the review form. A conflict of interest is understood as
having publications with the author, or closely collaborating with the author in such roles as supervisor, co-researcher, funding provider, or in any other condition that might influence your judgement of the article
having publications with the author, or closely collaborating with the author in such roles as supervisor, co-researcher, funding provider, or in any other condition that might influence your judgement of the article
Recommendations
Recommendations are defined as:
For any doubt or question, please contact the Editor-in-chief.
- Accept - The article is ready for publication, no changes are needed.
- Minor corrections - Small changes which can be addressed in 2-3 weeks, for example amending citations, changing sentences, adding in a small section.
- Major corrections - Larger as well as smaller changes which may need 3-6 weeks to complete. For example, rewriting a whole section or restructuring the whole article.
- Reject - The article is not scholarly accurate and should not be considered for publication. When rejecting a piece, please explain your reasoning to the editors in the ‘Reviewers’ comments to editors’ box. Suggestions of rejection that are not justified will not be taken into consideration.
For any doubt or question, please contact the Editor-in-chief.