Start Submission

Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

All submissions are initially assessed by an Editor, who decides whether or not the article is suitable for peer review. Submissions considered suitable for peer review are assigned to one or more independent experts (usually two or three), who assess the article for clarity, validity, and sound methodology. Conference papers may only receive one external review, if shown to have been previously reviewed by the conference panel.

The journal operates a single-blind peer review process, meaning that the reviewers may be aware of the names and affiliations of the authors, but the reviewer reports provided to authors are anonymous. The review period is expected to take around four to six weeks, although this can vary depending on reviewer availability. Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal.

Based on the reviewer reports the editor will make a recommendation for rejection, minor or major revisions, or acceptance. Overall editorial responsibility rests with the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, who is supported by an expert, international Editorial Board.

Authors are asked to supply details of suggested reviewers during the submission process. The editorial team do not guarantee that these suggestions will be used and authors should not expect them to be. All reviewers must be 100% independent of the submission and the authors, and will be asked to declare competing interest prior to completing a review.

Section Policies

Technical Articles

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Short Reports

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Commentaries

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Reviews

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Case Studies

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Book Reviews

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Quick links