The review of any submitted manuscript is managed by a member of the Editorial Board designated by the Editor-in-Chief. The Journal operates on a single-review-cycle decision model that is also single-blind. Authors do not know the identity of their reviewers. The identity of the member of the Editorial Board handling the review may be disclosed at any time during the review process; however, it will normally be disclosed when a final decision has been reached. Reviewers are expected to give a recommendation to publish or not based upon the manuscript they have received. A recommendation to publish may be accompanied by a list of recommended revisions that the editor should request of the authors. All final decisions on publication are made and communicated by the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviews should be constructive and substantial. Reviewers should take care to distinguish between mathematical errors and differences in opinion regarding the interpretation of the theory or underlying assumptions. Submissions should be aligned with the journal's scope and vision. The Editor-in-Chief will consider both types of critique when making a publication decision.

Articles in the Perspectives section are shorter, and reviewers should focus on clarity of the argument, not on the conclusion. The topic should be in line with the journal's scope and vision.

Reviewers should prepare separate recommendations to the editor and comments for the authors. Comments to the authors will be transmitted as prepared, so reviewers should take care not to compromise their anonymity unintentionally. Reviewers who choose to reveal their identity to the authors may do so.

Reviewers are expected to complete their assignments within three months. Authors are expected to complete required revisions within one month of receiving a decision. Upon receipt of the revised manuscript, an editor may ask the reviewer to confirm that the revisions meet the recommendations. The editor may also accept the revised manuscript without further consulting the reviewers.

Reviewers should declare any conflicts of interest when they accept the request to review a paper in accordance with the policy.

The Journal will not participate in peer-review evaluations that might compromise the anonymity of the reviewers without the explicit written permission of the reviewers.