The peer review process

JRWS peer review process can be summarized into different steps.

The policy of JRWS is the Double-Blind Review process.

Where the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript.

 1. Manuscript Submission

The corresponding author submits the manuscript to the journal via the online submission system and the journal accepts submissions by email.

2. Evaluation by the Editor in Chief

Editor in chief checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting recording to JRWS aim and scope. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

3. Assigns to Editor

Editor in chief assigns the manuscript to an Editor for handling the peer review.

4. Invitation to Reviewers

The handling editor sends invitations to two individuals appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued.

5. Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers consider the invitation, then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, the editor might also suggest alternative reviewers.

6. Conducting the Review

The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews

The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

8. The Decision is communicated

The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments.

9. Final Steps

If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the editorial office.