Reviewing Policy
Manuscripts submitted to the journal must be original and unpublished. They may not have appeared elsewhere, whether in whole or in part, nor may they be simultaneously under consideration by another journal or publisher. Only those submissions that have successfully passed the journal’s preliminary editorial assessment are referred for peer review. Submissions are evaluated in accordance with the principles of fairness and impartiality, solely on the basis of their scholarly quality and their suitability for the scope and profile of the journal, without discrimination on grounds of nationality, race, ethnic origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, citizenship, political conviction, or academic status (including career stage).
The journal employs a double-blind peer review procedure. Each article is assessed by two independent reviewers appointed by the Volume Editor. Reviewers must not be affiliated with the author’s home institution, and no conflict of interest may exist between author and reviewer. The identities of the reviewers of individual submissions remain confidential.
In view of the highly specialised nature of many submissions, and the correspondingly limited number of specialists in certain fields, the journal publishes an alphabetical list of all scholars who have served as reviewers for the previous seven volumes, thereby safeguarding reviewer anonymity while ensuring an appropriate degree of transparency.
Reviewers are required to submit a signed written report, in electronic and/or paper form. Each report should contain a clearly stated conclusion indicating one of the four options:
(1) the paper in question deserves to be published in its present form;
(2) the paper may be published after some minor revisions;
(3) the paper needs substantial revision and has to be re-submitted for another peer-review;
(4) the paper should not be published.
Authors receive both review reports relating to their submission. They are expected to address the reviewers’ observations and to return a revised version of the manuscript within the time specified by the Editorial Board. Failure to do so may result in the postponement of publication to a subsequent volume.
As a rule, only those articles that have received two favourable reviews are accepted for publication. Where one report is favourable and the other unfavourable, the Editorial Board may either decline the submission or refer it to a third reviewer. A second unfavourable review results in rejection.
The Editorial Board reserves the right to disregard a review if it contains inappropriate remarks concerning the author or other scholars, or if its tone falls short of accepted standards of academic decorum. In such circumstances, the submission may be referred to another reviewer.
