Res Practica practises double-anonymous peer review: authors do not know the identity of their reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
Editorial assessment
Every submission is first examined by the editorial team, which verifies that the manuscript falls within the journal’s aims and scope, meets the requirements set out in the Submission Guidelines, and has been properly anonymised. Manuscripts that do not meet these conditions may be returned to the author or declined at this stage, without external review. Authors are normally informed of the outcome of this initial assessment within a few weeks of submission.
Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are sent to at least two reviewers, selected by the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial coordinator, who may consult the Scientific Committee where specialised expertise is required. Reviewers are chosen for their competence in the relevant field and are asked to declare any conflict of interest before accepting an assignment. Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
Reviewers are asked to assess the originality, rigour, and clarity of the manuscript, and to recommend one of the following outcomes: acceptance, acceptance subject to minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection. Their reports are shared with the author in anonymised form.
Manuscripts submitted to Res Practica are treated as confidential. Reviewers may not share, cite, or make any use of a manuscript under review, and are asked to destroy or delete their copy once the review is complete.
Timelines
The journal aims to reach a decision within approximately three months of submission. Review times vary with the availability of qualified reviewers and with the volume of submissions, and may be longer for special issues or during periods of high demand. Authors who have not received an update within a reasonable period are welcome to contact the editorial team.
Decisions
The reviewers’ reports are the primary factor in determining the outcome of a submission.
- Two positive assessments: the manuscript is accepted for publication.
- One positive assessment and one requiring minor or major revisions: the decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult the Editorial Board.
- Two assessments requiring major revisions: the manuscript is not accepted in its present form, but the author is invited to revise and resubmit.
- Two negative assessments: the manuscript is rejected.
Editorial decisions on individual submissions rest solely with the journal’s editorial team. See Governance and Business Practices.
Appeals
Authors who believe that a decision rests on a significant misunderstanding of their work, or that the review process was not properly followed, may write to the Editor-in-Chief setting out the grounds for their appeal. The Editor-in-Chief will consider the request and may, where warranted, seek an additional review. Decisions on appeals are final. Disagreement with a reviewer’s scholarly judgement is not in itself grounds for appeal.
Special issues
Manuscripts submitted to special issues undergo the same double-anonymous review process, on the same criteria and with the same possible outcomes. For these issues, reviewers are identified and approached by the guest editors, who assess the reports and recommend an outcome for each manuscript. Final decisions rest with the editorial team, which works closely with the guest editors and gives considerable weight to their judgement. Guest editors assume editorial responsibility for their issue under the oversight of the Editor-in-Chief and are bound by the journal’s policies.