Publication

How review works

Nothing publishes automatically. Every record passes through review and a named person makes the decision.

The statesIn order
State What it means Waiting on
Submitted You have submitted. An editor picks it up. Editor
Screening Structural and scope checks, plus anything a machine cannot judge. Editor
With reviewers One or two named reviewers are reading it, each with a due date. Reviewers
Revisions requested You have one consolidated list of changes to work through. You
Accepted The decision is made and the record is being prepared. Editorial team
Scheduled Queued for a publication date. Editorial team
Published Live, with a permanent URL and an identifier. Nobody, it is done

Two states end things: declined and withdrawn. Withdrawing is available to the authors jointly at any point before publication.

What reviewers are askedA form, not a blank box

A blank comment box produces "looks good" from a busy student. Reviewers answer specific questions instead, each with room for comment:

  • Is the research question clearly stated?
  • Could someone else repeat the methods from what is written?
  • Do the conclusions follow from the data presented?
  • Are limitations stated honestly?
  • Are figures and tables legible, labeled, and referenced?
  • Does the contributions statement match what the paper describes?

The scales on those questions exist to organize a reviewer's thinking. They are never averaged into a score, and no submission is ever ranked against another.

TrackingNo login

Submitting gives you a private link that shows where your submission is, with dates, and works without logging in. It shows the timeline and nothing else: never a reviewer's identity, never their comments, never an email address. The link can be revoked and reissued, and it is kept out of search engines. Once the record is published, it redirects to the published page.

Signed in, you see everything the tracker shows plus the reviewer comments and whatever action is yours.

Who decidesA named person

Reviewers recommend. The decision belongs to the editor in chief or the faculty advisor, and it is recorded against their name with a date. Corrections, new versions, and retractions each have their own defined route, described on the corrections page.