This journal uses a double-anonymised model of peer review. Neither author nor reviewers know the identity of each other.
Following submission, an article is reviewed as follows:
· The Editor assesses the article and decides whether it should be declined immediately or sent for review by specialist academic referees. If the article is not declined immediately, it will be sent to two specialist referees.
· Following receipt of the referees’ reports, the article is re-assessed by the Editor. At this stage, the article may be (a) accepted subject to minor revisions, (b) returned for major revisions ahead of re-submission and re-review, if the Editor believes that the article has merits and would benefit the Journal but has problems which mean that it is not yet ready for publication, or (c) declined.
· Author(s) will be sent the referees’ feedback, whether the article is accepted or not.
· Revised versions of articles accepted subject to minor revisions or returned for major revisions ahead of re-submission must address all the issues raised in the initial report and authors must provide explanations for any suggested revisions they feel unable to undertake.
· There will be only one opportunity for a re-review in the case of revisions being requested. Articles that have been subject to major revisions will usually be sent to referees for re-evaluation.
The Editor aims to complete the initial review of an article within three months of submission. However, please be aware that the refereeing process relies on extremely busy academics and that it is not always possible to adhere to this timetable.
To appeal an editorial decision, please contact the Editor (at Lin.Foxhall@liverpool.ac.uk) and specify the reason for your appeal.
Your appeal will be reviewed by the Editor and/or an Editor who did not review the manuscript. The final decision regarding your appeal will rest with the JHS Editor and Editorial Committee.