Upon submission via ScholarOne, articles are examined to ensure that they align with the journal’s focus  and comply with its 11,000 word limit (including text, abstract, and notes).

Articles then undergo a preliminary review by the Editor in Chief (EIC) to determine if they warrant expert review. Articles that do not warrant expert review receive detailed comments from an in house reviewer.

In either case, this journal uses a double-anonymous model of review. The author does not know the identity of the reviewer, just as the reviewer does not know the author’s identity.

Members of the editorial board may be called upon to serve as expert reviewers when appropriate. We also seek out experts across the world to review.

When authors recommend reviewers, we try to secure one from their list.

If reviewer invitations are declined or go unanswered, the search for willing and qualified reviewers is expanded. Scholars who agree to review manuscripts complete and submit their reviews, ideally within our 8 week time frame (from the date of agreeing to review).

The EIC requires at least two expert reports to issue a formal decision. The EIC notifies the author about whether their Ms has been accepted, whether revisions are requested, or whether the Ms will be rejected. Anonymized reviewer comments are included in the decision letter. The EIC also includes editorial suggestions for manuscripts to be revised and resubmitted.

The author resubmits the revised paper to ScholarOne, and provides a detailed response to all the feedback. Original reviewers are invited to review the revised manuscript (if they have indicated via ScholarOne that they are willing to).

After reviews come in, the editor decides to accept, reject, or request another round of revisions on the Ms. Authors are advised of this via ScholarOne.

This review process applies to Research Articles. As commissioned pieces, Book Reviews, Review Articles, and Symposia receive close editorial oversight from the EIC or the Book Review Editor.