Notes for reviewers

The primary purpose of the review process is to ensure that papers accepted for publication by the journal meet the highest academic standards of clarity, rigour and replicability. A secondary purpose of the review process is to provide constructive feedback for authors whose papers fall short of this mark.

The general expectation is that all reviewer feedback will be passed on, in an anonymised form, to the submitting author(s). Reviewers are therefore asked to ensure that their comments are suitably constructive, and to highlight any comments that they would prefer remained confidential to the editor.

In providing feedback on a paper, reviewers are asked make a clear overall recommendation (publish; publish subject to minor revision; publish subject to major revision; revise and resubmit; reject). This recommendation should be followed by a justification for the recommendation made, including at least brief reference to each of:

• Originality
• Validity of methods, results and interpretations
• Relevance to journal readership
• Clarity and structure of narrative
• Quality and appropriateness of any tables or figures

If revision prior to publication or resubmission is recommended, reviewers are asked to provide a list of points that the submitting author(s) should be asked to address.

In order to allow for timely publication, reviewers are asked to provide comments on submitted items within the agreed review deadline (normally four weeks after receipt of item).