Improving the Review Policy and Process for Authors and Reviewers

In this issue’s “From the Editor,” I describe a new review policy and process for both authors and reviewers. Authors should find that this new policy and process provides them with faster editorial decisions, higher quality feedback, and greater clarity about required revisions, as well as greater freedom to disagree with reviewers and to write the papers they (the authors) want. Reviewers should find that this new policy and process saves them from having to review obviously flawed papers and from having to review different versions of the same paper over and over again.

Under my editorship, the CQ’s review policy and process includes the following key elements:

Manuscripts may be submitted for review in any recognized formatting style. No longer do papers have to be formatted using the journal’s style guide on the first round of reviews. Also, the managing editor no longer has to check and approve a paper’s formatting before it is put in the editor’s queue.

All submitted papers are first read by me. I then decide either to desk-reject the paper or to send it out for review. The desk-reject rate is deliberately high (about 60%) in order to reduce both the journal’s demands on reviewers and the amount of time authors must wait before receiving negative decisions on their manuscripts.

Submissions passing my initial screening are then sent to several reviewers, who are recruited from the list of authors in the manuscripts’ references, from the results of electronic/web searches for …

Leave a Reply