This journal uses a double-anonymised model of peer review. Neither author nor reviewers know the identity of each other.
JRMA Peer Review Confidentiality Statement
The double-blind peer review process is of paramount importance to JRMA, and that process functions only when all parties act in a collaborative spirit of good faith and mutual respect. JRMA adheres to the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics, and uses the following model: the process is double blind; the editor mediates all interactions between reviewers and authors; peer reviews are not published; peer review is facilitated by the journal; and the review is owned by the author of the peer review.
The JRMA Editorial Board expects all parties to follow the guidelines below regarding confidentiality, which are in keeping with recommendations for best practices from the Association of University Presses and shared by our sister societies.
Authors of article submissions will
- Treat peer reviews as confidential correspondence. Although it is common practice for an author to consult with a colleague or mentor about responding to peer reviews, the content of reviews should not be circulated or published, including on social media, unless an author receives permission from the peer reviewer, through the editor.
To appeal an editorial decision, please contact the Editor in Chief (at F.Jarman@liverpool.ac.uk) and specify the reason for your appeal.
Your appeal will be reviewed by the Editor in Chief and/or an Editor who did not review the manuscript. The final decision regarding your appeal will rest with the JRMA Editor in Chief and Editorial Board.