 | | | |
|
|
|
TOPOLOGY
| |
| | |
|
|
Peer review Policy for Topology
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 for all reputable scientific journals. Our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of Topology and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The Editor-in-Chief first evaluates all manuscripts arriving at the Oxford office. The overseas editors do the same for the appers submitted to them. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficently original, have serious scientific flaws, poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimal criteria are passed on to an expert for review.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed within two weeks of receipt.
Type of Peer Review
Topology employs single blind reviews, in which the referees remain anonymous throughout the process. The Editors may ask for a second referee's report or a second opinion from an expert.
How referees are selected
Referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our database is constantly being updated and members of teh Editorial Board are consulted on choice of referees. We welcome suggestions for referees from the author, though these recommendations may or may not be used.
Referee reports
Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
- is original
- is methodologically sound
- has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
- correctly references previous relevant work
- is likely to have a significant impact on the field
Referees are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process. Nevertheless, referees frequently do make suggestions in these directions which may be forwarded to the author. Referees are expected to declare any conflict of interest.
Receipt of the report
Where the referee's report indicates that, after revision, the paper is publishable, the Editors may choose to accept the manuscript in principle and await the outcome of the revision. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the referee. Referees may request more than one revision of a manuscript.
Final report
The UK-based editors normally meet every six weeks to consider a gathered field of refereed papers submitted to both the Oxford and overseas editors. The final decision to publish is based on a consensus at the meeting. The process is competitive - positive referees' reports do not necessarily guarantee acceptance. After each meeting, the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript is sent to the author. The letter may contain recommendations and comments made by the referees.
Editor's Decision is final
The Chief Editor is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
|
|
| |
| | |
|
|
| |
|
