Reviewer policy statement

The practice of peer review is to ensure that good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out on all reputable scientific journals. Our referees therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of [Journal] and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

Special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organisers or scientific committees. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office.

Initial manuscript evaluation

The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to at least 2 experts for review.

Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed within 2 weeks of receipt.

Type of Peer Review

This journal employs single blind review, where the reviewer remains anonymous throughout the process/ double blind reviewing, where both the reviewer and author remain anonymous throughout the process / open reviewing were both the reviewer and author are known to one another.

How the reviewer is selected

Reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our database is constantly being updated. We welcome suggestions for reviewers from the author though these recommendations may or may not be used.

Reviewer reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript :

Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.

How long does the review process take?

Typically the manuscript will be reviewed within X months. Should the reviewers’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion will be sought. All our reviewers sign a conflict of interest statement. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the initial referees within X weeks. Reviewers may request more than one revision of a manuscript.

Final report

A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the reviewers, and may include verbatim comments by the reviewers.

Editor’s Decision is final

Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.

Becoming a Reviewer for [Journal]

If you are not currently a reviewer for [Journal] but would like to be added to the list of reviewers for this title, please contact the editorial office at xxxxx. The benefits of reviewing for [Journal] include the opportunity to see and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage, and to be acknowledged in an annual statement in [Journal] if you have reviewed more than X manuscripts in the preceding 12 months. You may also be able to cite your work for [Journal] as part of your professional development requirements for various Professional Societies and Organisations.

CME Accreditation

All referees for this Journal are eligible for x CME points from [Society]. Please refer to [society website] for additional details on CME accreditation and validation by [Society].