Review Procedure

The editors select experts in the field to comment on manuscripts that are sent out to review. Authors are required to justify the need for publication of their manuscript in the inSTEMM Journal by uploading a cover letter, including the suggestion of at least three reviewers. If, in the judgment of the editors, a manuscript is clearly unsuitable for publication, it will be rejected without external review. Authors of such manuscripts have the same right to appeal as other authors.

Referees are requested to comment critically on the validity and importance of the manuscript, and they are asked for their opinion concerning the degree of interest of the manuscript for the readers of the inSTEMM Journal. Referees submitting favourable reports are asked to provide reasons for recommending publication. The editors also appreciate any suggestions from the referees directed toward improvements in style, grammar, completeness of references, etc. Advice received from referees concerning the scientific merits of a manuscript are considered very seriously; ordinarily, no manuscript that receives important scientific criticism from a referee will be accepted without further review. Although advice from referees concerning the suitability of the paper for the journal in terms of importance, broad interest, and accessibility is solicited and is vital, the editors do not consider such counsel definitive and will weigh their own perceptions of the manuscript and of the journal, and their understanding of the opinions of the readers of the journal, in reaching their conclusions on these aspects of acceptability.

The referee is requested to send a critique within a week of receipt. If a timely response is not received, a reminder message is sent; we ask the referee to let us know if further delay is expected. If no response is received within a suitable additional interval, the file is inspected by the editor. Often it is appropriate to make a decision on the basis of information already at hand. Editors are not required to obtain two referee reports—they make a decision when they judge they have sufficient information. However, the editor may find that additional advice is needed or may decide (usually on the basis of contact with the referee) that further delay is acceptable. Of course, the editors stop using referees who are too often delinquent.

Upon receipt of the referees’ reports, the editor evaluates them and makes a decision concerning publication. For a small proportion of manuscripts, the reports are convincing and favourable without caveats, and the manuscripts are put into production immediately. Some manuscripts are conditionally accepted upon consideration by the authors of changes suggested by the referees and endorsed by the editors. Most manuscripts are not accepted at this stage; the authors are asked to respond to the criticisms of the referees. While the editors do not assume that the referees’ views take precedence over well-considered arguments of the authors and do not require authors to make every change suggested by the referees, they do consider that objections of referees constitute criticism by recognised scholars who belong to the special set of experts addressed by the manuscript, and they do demand that the author consider those criticisms seriously.

Referee reports are advisory to the editors but are generally transmitted by the editors to the authors, and so should be written in a collegial manner. The editors may withhold or edit reports for cause.

Any resubmittance should be accompanied by a summary of the changes made and a brief response to all recommendations and criticisms. This material will normally be forwarded to reviewers and so should be written in a collegial manner. Remarks that authors wish to address solely to the editors should be clearly identified and separated from the summary and response.

When the manuscript is resubmitted after the first round of referee reports, the editor may take any of a variety of actions. The editor may find the authors’ response and revisions persuasive and therefore approve publication. Usually, however, the editor concludes that further review is necessary, perhaps by the prior referees, perhaps by different referees. In an effort to minimize the time between initial submittal of a manuscript and final disposition, the anonymous review process will usually end with the reports received following the authors’ first resubmittal of the manuscript. Thus the editor will inform the authors either that the manuscript will be published (possibly with minor revision) or that it is inappropriate for publication in this journal. If the editor’s negative decision is not accepted and the authors again resubmit the manuscript, the appeal process will begin.

Although no precise definition of acceptability can be constructed, in general the editor will accept only those papers for which there appears to be evidence that a strong majority of interested and competent readers conversant with the field of the paper would consider that the paper is free of detectable error, important, interesting, and suitable for publication in the inSTEMM Journal. 

After acceptance of a manuscript, if further information that seems to warrant investigation is received by the Editors, they will regard it as an obligation to reconsider the acceptance decision.