Instructions to Associate Editors
- Please provide names of appropriate reviewers
Feedback regarding the reviewers chosen by the Editorial Office is most welcome. If a particular person is inappropriate and/or if someone else is more appropriate, please inform the editorial office. Please provide names of additional reviewers as soon as possible as many decline the invitation to review.
- Please assess the overall quality of the reviews and, where necessary, adjudicate between reviewers recommendations
If you are not satisfied with the quality of a reviewers report or if you disagree with their recommendation, please indicate this in your comments to the Editor.
- Please provide an additional review, where appropriate
An additional set of comments for the authors is required when the two reviews have divergent recommendations, where one of the reviews is lacking in depth or occasionally where only one reviewers report has been obtained.
- Please provide a recommendation regarding publication together with a priority rating.
Manuscripts that are provisionally accepted should require only minor revision. This usually does not entail the addition of new data. Manuscripts that require major revision should be rejected with an invitation to resubmit issued only if the work is of sufficient importance. In all other cases, the manuscript should be rejected outright.
- Please adhere strictly to the time limits requested
The time taken by the Associate Editor should not delay the review process. It is most important for the Journal to reduce the time of the peer review process as much as possible.
- Please inform the editorial office if you will be away
This information is most important for avoiding unnecessary delays in the review process.
- Please take note of the Instructions to Reviewers in that forum