If you are a reviewer you are kindly requested to evaluate the manuscript by filling out a questionnaire and writing a short explanation (1000–4000 characters, 200–600 words) of your position. You are kindly asked to accept the invitation within one week, while the deadline for completing the review is regularly within six weeks after the acceptance. The per review process is managed in our Open Journal System.
The journal accepts original manuscripts with sound theoretical, methodological and empirical grounding. The editors will not review manuscripts that are currently under review for publication or that have been published in another English language journal. However, manuscripts based on previous research reports, or articles in non-English language journals will be considered. Authors are welcome to email an abstract to the editors prior to formal submission for guidance on the appropriateness of their proposed article.
All submitted papers will undergo an initial screening by the journal’s editors (including the articles for special issues). Articles are then reviewed anonymously by two or more reviewers. Papers that do not meet the formatting and content guidelines will not be reviewed.
The reviewers are experts in the given field and are neither institutionally nor personally associated with the author. The review will be provided by way of a uniform editorial form.
Articles accepted by the editors will be forwarded to two reviewers, selected by the editors. The reviewers are experts in the given field and are neither institutionally nor personally associated with the author. The review will be provided by way of a uniform editorial form in the Open Journal System.
Decisions on accepting, revising or rejecting a manuscript
The decision to accept, rework or reject an article is governed by the following rules:
- If both reviews are favourable (“Accept”), the final decision on acceptance is taken by the editors.
- Likewise, if both reviews are unfavourable (“Reject”), the final decision on rejection is taken by the editors.
- If both reviews suggest minor revisions (“Minor revisions required”), the author is invited to revise the manuscript, which is forwarded to the editors.
- If both reviews suggest major revisions (“Resubmit for review”), the author is invited to revise the text, which is then sent for a new assessment either to the reviewers who raised the original objections, or to a third reviewer.
- If one review is favourable and the other one unfavourable, the author is invited to revise the text, which is then forwarded for a third review after which the final decision is taken by the editors.
- If one review is favourable and the other suggests minor revisions, the revised text is forwarded to the editors without being previously re-assessed by the reviewer.
- If one review is favourable while the other recommends major revisions, the author is invited to revise the text, and the article is then forwarded to the reviewer who requested that it be revised.
- If one review is unfavourable and the other requests minor or major revisions, the editors will either reject the article or ask its author to make a revision, whereupon the revised text shall be forwarded to a third reviewer.
- If the reviewers fail to reach consensus even after reviewing a revised version of the article, the editors will either contact a third reviewer (if such action was not taken earlier) or put the article forward to the editors for a final decision whether to accept or reject.
The editors have two weeks after having received the reviews to make their decision.
The author(s) will receive a Report to the Author(s). The editors immediately inform the author about the decision. The entire procedure should be completed within ten to sixteen weeks from receiving the manuscript, depending on the number of reviews required. The editors and the Editorial Board are not liable for any delays caused by reviewers.