Peer Review Policies

When submitting their work, authors are allowed to recommend up to three possible peer reviewers. The utilization of these suggestions by the magazine is not assured. In addition to being required to state any competing interests, all reviewers must be impartial towards the proposal. They will provide editorial guidance once the review process is over. Should a paper be allowed to be revised in light of the reviews, authors should submit their updated versions no later than one week following receipt of the reviewer’s comments.

We use double blind peer review, which keeps the referee in the dark about the author’s identity and affiliation. The author is also not made aware of the referee’s identity or affiliation. We always aim to get at least three unbiased reviews included. The Editor-in-Chief will confer with the managing or guest editor in the event of a substantial disparity before making an editorial decision.

Review requests are sent to peers that are qualified to issue an assessment in terms of the relevance of their theoretical, methodological, thematic and/or geographic expertise. Our goal is to have at least one member of the editorial board among the group of reviewers. An editor’s reasoning and the actual reviews themselves will support any denial based on the results of the review process. We make every effort to expedite and optimize this process as much as we can.