Reasons to Refuse a Publication

  • Defamatory content
  • Plagiarism
  • Undisclosed/unclearly disclosed conflicts of interest
  • Fabricated information
  • Fails to meet the quality criteria below

Quality Assessment Criteria (enforced by reviewers)

  • Material factual claims, statistics, and quotations must be supported by sources that readers can independently access wherever reasonably possible.
  • Quotations are verbatim and not misleadingly cropped.
  • No unattributed reproduction of another person's work.
  • Images, charts, and datasets must be the author's own or used with a lawful basis for reproduction, which should be identified where appropriate.
  • Author has disclosed any financial or organisational interest in the subject.
  • Word count, formatting, and citation style match house rules.

Reviewer quality judgement calls

  • What is the article's central claim? (If a reviewer can't state it in one sentence, the piece isn't ready.)
  • What would have to be true for the claim to be wrong, and does the author engage with it?
  • Does the evidence presented actually support the conclusion drawn, or a weaker one?
  • Is any evidence, context, or counterargument missing that a knowledgeable reader would consider essential?
  • Would a reader who disagrees recognise their own position in how it's described?

Reviewer assignment

  • One reviewer is responsible for providing feedback and making the initial publication decision.
  • The reviewer must provide written reasons for every meaningful decision.
  • Whenever it is possible to choose a reviewer unaffiliated with the author, they are given preference.
  • An author may always appeal the decision and ask for a different unaffiliated reviewer.
  • All contributing reviewers must be named in the publication.

Publication standard revision

Standards are open to review.