Peer review

Every research article is read by at least two independent external reviewers under double-anonymous review: reviewers are not told who wrote the paper, and authors are not told who reviewed it.

Who reviews

Reviewers are external to the journal. Editorial Board members manage the review process and take the decision; they do not ordinarily serve as the reviewers of manuscripts they are handling. Where two reports conflict materially, a third reviewer is appointed.

Who has agreed to review

These are the scholars who have told us, in their own hand, that they will referee for the journal. Each was written to individually and answered on a reply form of their own, and the form asks two things that shape the figures below: which subject areas they will read in, and how many papers a year we may send them — any number from one to six, their choice.

• Referees counts the people who said yes in that area.
• Reviews a year adds up the number each of them chose. Three referees who chose 2, 2 and 1 give that area five reviews a year.
• Papers a year is half the reviews, rounded down, because every paper is read by two referees. Five reviews a year is enough for two papers.

So an area with few referees can still carry several papers if those referees offered more, and the reverse. A referee who works across two areas appears in both rows, which is why the rows add up to more than the total. The figures are counted from the replies and updated every hour; no names are shown.

The steps

1. Office check — scope, length, references, an anonymised file and a separate title page. A manuscript that fails is declined at once, with the reasons.
2. Desk check — scope, standard, and a similarity check. Manuscripts may be declined here without external review.
3. A handling editor is assigned from the Board.
4. Reviewers are invited. Typically five or six invitations are needed to secure two acceptances.
5. Reports are written against a fixed form, within three to four weeks.
6. The handling editor decides: accept, minor revision, major revision, reject.
7. Revision and re-review, usually one or two rounds.

Why the reports use a form

A reviewer asked to write freely can return two lines. The form asks specific questions — is the research question clear, is the evidence sufficient, do the citations say what they are said to say, what must be changed and why — and it cannot be answered in two lines.

Reviewers are not paid

No reviewer receives a fee. On request we issue a certificate of review service naming the journal, which may be entered in an institutional record.