Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal operates on a single-review-cycle decision model that is also single-blind. Authors do not know the identity of their reviewers. 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.

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 chose 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.

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. The editor will consider both types of critique when making a publication decision.

Reviewers should declare any conflicts of interest when they accept the request to review a paper. A conflict of interest exists when there is a relationship between the reviewer and at least one of the authors, such as co-principal investigator status on a current grant, that might bias the review. The editor will decide whether to reassign the manuscript once the conflict of interest has been declared.

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.