Issuing time:2022-11-17 10:28
Editorial decisions are not a matter of countingvotes or numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majorityrecommendation. We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by eachreviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information notavailable to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers andto the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them,we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also underconsideration.
Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particularcourse of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of aparticular paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the editorsmay have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most usefulreports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which adecision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publicationis often more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation one way orthe other.
The peer-review process is the main mechanism forensuring the quality of published articles. To this end, the submitted articlesare rigorously peer-reviewed to ensure the high quality submissions areaccepted and published. The decision to accept a manuscript is not based solelyon the scientific validity and originality of the study content; other factorsare considered, including the level of innovation, extent and importance of newinformation. The steps of Peer review process are as follows:
As a matter of policy, we do not suppress reviewers'reports; any comments that were intended for the authors are transmitted,regardless of what we may think of the content. On rare occasions, we may edita report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidentialinformation about other matters. We ask reviewers to avoid statements that maycause needless offence; conversely, we strongly encourage reviewers to stateplainly their opinion of a paper.
We are committed to rapid editorial decisions andpublication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuableservice both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. Wetherefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed.If reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, we ask them tolet us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, findalternatives.