What's expected of you during the publishing process?

Respect is the foundation of progress in peer review 

The peer review process relies on collaboration among authors, editors, and reviewers. Everyone involved is working to uphold high academic standards, often on a volunteer basis. That’s why professional, courteous, and constructive communication is essential at every stage of the process. 

 Here’s how to maintain mutual respect and handle disagreements productively. 

Respect is reciprocal 
Editors and reviewers dedicate their time to support the community, and authors invest time and effort in sharing rigorous, impactful research. Remember: authors, editors, and reviewers all share a common goal: to advance knowledge through constructive collaboration.  

A professional tone builds trust 
Whether submitting a revision or raising a concern, maintain a tone that is factual, polite, and focused on finding solutions. Frustration is understandable, but aggression, sarcasm, or personal attacks are never acceptable. 

Clear communication prevents conflict 
Ambiguities or assumptions can easily lead to misunderstandings. If you’re unsure about a reviewer’s feedback or an editorial decision, ask respectfully via the Review Forum or the handling editor. 

Learn more about responding to comments in peer review.  

For authors 

• Submit your manuscript, revisions, and responses within reasonable timelines. 

• Communicate respectfully with editors, even if you disagree with a decision. 

• Avoid personal criticism of reviewers. Focus on the content of the feedback, not the individual. 

• Raise concerns (e.g about bias or conflicts of interest) through the appropriate channels. You can contact your journal’s editorial office using the contacts page.  

 For editors and reviewers 

• Acknowledge the significant time and effort authors put into their submissions. 

• Offer feedback that is constructive, focused on the work, and free from dismissive or inflammatory language. 

• Providing brief reports which only include a summary of the article is not considered good practice as it does not give constructive feedback to the authors. 

• Recognize the diversity of research methods, writing styles, and scholarly voices. 

• Respond to author questions in a timely and courteous manner. 

Disagreements are natural in peer review. When handled constructively, they lead to stronger research. If you have a concern about a reviewer comment or editorial decision:  

1. Contact the handling editor via the review forum 

Clearly state your concern and reference specific comments or actions. Maintain a professional tone throughout your communications.  

2. Avoid public accusations or inflammatory statements 

Making public, aggressive or unfounded claims about bias, misconduct, or incompetence can delay resolution and harm reputations. 

3. Trust the peer review and editorial process 

Editors are trained to assess disputes fairly and impartially. They may seek an additional opinion or escalate the issue as appropriate.  

We’re committed to a fair, inclusive, and respectful publishing environment. We take all reports of unprofessional behavior seriously. This includes, but is not limited to:  

• Personal attacks or insults directed at editors, reviewers, or authors 

• Repeated submission of inflammatory or vexatious complaints 

• Harassment, intimidation, or attempts to influence editorial decisions improperly 

• Discriminatory language or behavior 

When such conduct is identified, we reserve the right to remove individuals from editorial roles, reject manuscripts, or take further action in line with our ethical guidelines. Read our full policy on vexatious complaints and editorial ethics.