At this journal we place strong emphasis on providing authors with an efficient and robust peer review experience—one that is underpinned by high ethical and editorial standards. As journal editors our role, at its best, should be to guide authors in developing and strengthening their work to the point where it is acceptable for publication. We are committed to ensuring that our peer review process is a collaborative one between authors, editors and reviewers. Ultimately, peer review should be both constructive and instructive.

The journal has created a range of materials and resources aimed at supporting manuscript handling editors in their editorial duties.

Editors are advised to make use of the following resources:

• How to use our manuscript tracking system, Snapp - including how to find referees and make an editorial decision
• Guidelines for evaluating new submissions*
• Guidelines for making editorial decisions (after peer review)*
• Drafting editorial decision letters*
• Detecting potential editorial malpractice*
• Guidance for referees — including how to structure a peer review report
• Editorial and publishing policies

*These resources reside on our private Editorial Community site, to which all Board members are given log-in access.

Criteria for publication

Editors are expected to make editorial recommendations solely and fully in line with the journal’s criteria for publication.

Papers that are judged realistically unlikely to meet these criteria, even after significant revisions, should be rejected.

To be published in the journal, a paper must satisfy all of these criteria:

1. Report research that is within the journal’s scope;
2. Pose a clear and valid research question;
3. Be academically sound in methodology and analysis;
4. Provide appropriate evidence or reasoning for the conclusions;
5. Make a contribution to the literature—irrespective to magnitude (we do not consider abstracts and internet preprints to compromise this);
6. Be presented in an intelligible fashion and in standard English.

Subjective judgements of perceived importance, significance or impact should not inform editorial recommendations; the research community makes such assessments after publication.

If a paper has been sent out for peer review this implies that the  editors consider it to be within the journal’s scope. Papers submitted for Guest-edited Collections that are judged inappropriate on the basis of scope, can be considered for publication in the general section of the journal. 

Submission system

Editors carry out their manuscript handling tasks in the journal’s submission system.

At present the journal uses two systems:

• Papers (and revised versions thereof) first submitted prior to September 17^th 2024 are processed on Manuscript Tracking System (MTS).
• All papers submitted after September 17^th 2024 are processed on our new system, Snapp — guidance on how to access the system and change your details is here.

Board members require access to both sites. If you cannot access either, please contact the editorial office.