Peer Review Process

Research on Frontiers operates a double-blind peer review process for all research articles. Neither the authors nor the reviewers are told each other's identities; the editorial office is the only party able to match a manuscript with its reviewers.

1. Editorial screening

Every manuscript is first read by an editor. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, that do not meet its formal requirements, or that show clear signs of ethical problems are desk-rejected at this stage. Authors are normally informed within two weeks.

2. Assignment of reviewers

Manuscripts that pass screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Where a manuscript is highly interdisciplinary, an additional reviewer may be invited. Reviewers are asked to declare any conflict of interest before accepting an invitation.

3. Review criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess:

• originality and significance of the contribution;
• soundness of the research design, methods and analysis;
• clarity of argument and quality of writing;
• adequacy of the literature review and referencing;
• compliance with research ethics requirements.

4. Timeframe

Reviewers are asked to return their reports within four weeks of accepting an invitation. The editorial office follows up with reviewers who do not respond, and will invite replacements if a report cannot be delivered in reasonable time. Authors can normally expect an initial decision within eight to twelve weeks of submission.

5. Decisions

On the basis of the reviewers' reports the handling editor recommends one of the following:

• Accept — published as submitted, subject to copy-editing.
• Minor revision — the manuscript is acceptable once the points raised by the reviewers have been addressed.
• Major revision — the manuscript requires substantial reworking and will be re-reviewed.
• Reject — the manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal.

Revised manuscripts are normally returned to the original reviewers. The final decision rests with the Chief Editor.

6. Appeals

Authors who believe that a decision rested on a factual misunderstanding may write to the editorial office at rof@nacrp.ca within four weeks of receiving the decision. Appeals are considered by an editor who was not involved in the original decision.

7. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers may not share, cite or make use of a manuscript or its data before publication.