Review of Manuscripts
We seek to make authors’ work available, not to restrict its availability. Thus, although reviewers on academic journals typically function as “gatekeepers,” the job of COPE reviewers is to work with authors to improve and clarify their work. Although only submissions “accepted for publication” will be published in the journal, manuscripts that have not (yet) been accepted will be posted in a “working papers” section of our website, at the author’s request, given that they conform to the Scholarship Guidelines of the International Working Group on Value Theory (IWGVT).

Reviews are “double-blind”: reviewers’ names are not revealed to the author, and vice-versa. However, reviews are public documents. The text of each review (without the reviewer’s name) will be sent to the author at the completion of the review process. Moreover, authors who wish to exercise their right of appeal (see below) can ask that reviews be published on our website along with their appeals.

We ask that referees use primarily objective, not subjective, criteria when evaluating submissions. We instruct them to keep judgments like “wrongheaded” and “ unconvincing ” to a bare minimum, and not to base recommendations to reject a manuscript upon them. Instead, we ask that reviews address questions such as the following:

• Does the paper conform to the IWGVT Scholarship Guidelines?
• Is the topic suitable for this journal?
• Is the paper clearly written?
• Are its aims clear, and are they adequately motivated?
• Are the facts correct, and are their conceptual bases identified (see the Scholarship Guidelines)?
• Are the logical and/or mathematical arguments sound?
• Is the paper adequately grounded in the relevant literature?
• In particular, does it engage contrary arguments and approaches?

Since the reviewer’s job is to work with authors to improve and clarify their work, we encourage them to include specific comments (as well as general ones) in their reviews.

 
The Editorial Decision Process
Once all reviews have been received, the editors will select one reviewer as the editorial coordinator (EC). The EC acts as the liason between the review panel and the author, and between the review panel and the editors. After studying the reviews, the EC attempts to forge a consensus decision of the editorial panel and a set of consensus recommendations for revision.

The EC then writes a letter to the editors, explaining the decision and detailing the editorial panel’s recommendations for revision. The editors will then either accept the decision and recommendations or ask for changes. Once agreement has been reached, the EC’s letter, along with a covering letter of the editors that endorses the decision and recommendation, is sent to the author. (Authors who wish to exercise their right of appeal can ask that these letters be published on our website along with their appeals.)

If the editorial panel is unable to reach a consensus, the editors will break the deadlock. Also, the editors have final authority in cases in which, after repeated efforts, they and the editorial panel are unable to reach agreement.

Once manuscripts are accepted for publication, the EC works with the author to produce a polished final version that conforms to COPE style guidelines.

Manuscripts are Accepted for publication only if the editors and the review panel think the manuscript is suitable for publication “as is” or after very minimal revision. A Revision & Resubmission Encouraged decision is a positive invitation to resubmit the manuscript after revising it in accordance with our recommendations. A Do Not Accept decision does not prevent the author from revising and resubmitting. It indicates that COPE’s editors and the editorial panel believe it unlikely that the paper will be suitable for publication even after the author revises it.

Manuscripts that are revised and resubmitted will generally be assigned to the original panel of reviewers. We will generally not assign new reviewers to resubmissions, even if one or more of the original reviewers is unable to review it.

Appeals
COPE steadfastly upholds authors’ right to appeal editorial decisions. Authors can appeal if they believe that the decision was not only incorrect, but also based on improper grounds. By “improper,” we mean that the decision was substantially affected by (a) theoretical bias, (b) political bias, or (c) significant factual, logical, or mathematical error, on a reviewer’s part.

To appeal a decision, an author writes a letter to the editors, explaining in detail why s/he believes the original decision was based on improper grounds. The editors then solicit responses from the members of the editorial panel. The manuscript, the author’s letter of appeal, and the reviewers’ responses then go to an appeal panel, selected by the editors. Neither the original reviewers nor the editors may serve on the appeal panel. The appeal panel decides whether or not the original decision was based on improper grounds; it does not review the manuscript itself. If it decides in favor of the author, the manuscript then receives a new review. Otherwise, the case is closed. The appeal panel’s decision is made in writing.

At the request of an author who appeals, we will post the relevant documents on a publicly accessible page of the COPE website. The purpose of this policy is to provide the author with additional protection against arbitrary or discriminatory behavior. The “relevant documents” are: the manuscript, the original reviews and EC letters, the letter of appeal, responses from the reviewers, correspondence between author and editors, the appeal panel’s decision, and any reaction of the author to that decision.