This Journal uses a double-blind review, which means the identities of the Authors are concealed from the Reviewers, and vice versa.

To facilitate this, the Authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity.

Blinded manuscript (no Author details): The main body of the paper (including the references, figures, tables and any acknowledgements) should not include any identifying information, such as the Authors' names or affiliations.

Besides the obvious need to remove names and affiliations under the title within the manuscript, other steps need to be taken to ensure the manuscript is correctly prepared for double-blind peer review. To assist with this process, the key items that need to be observed are as follows:

1. Use the third person to refer to work the Authors have previously undertaken, e.g. replace any phrases like "as we have shown before" with "… has been shown before (Anonymous, 2007)".
2. Make sure figures do not contain any affiliation-related identifier.
3. Do not eliminate essential self-references or other references, but limit self-references only to papers that are relevant for those reviewing the submitted paper.
4. Cite papers published by the Author in the text as follows: "(Anonymous, 2007)". For blinding in the reference list: "Anonymous. (2007). Details omitted for double-blind reviewing".
5. Remove references to funding sources.
6. Do not include acknowledgements.
7. Remove any identifying information, including author names, from file names, and ensure document properties are also anonymised.

Each paper is assessed by the Chairman of the Editorial Board and the Subject Editor, and if it meets the content criteria and falls within the Journal's profile, it is submitted for review.

1. 1. At least two independent Reviewers are recruited from entities outside the Author’s home institution.
   2. A double-blind review process is employed, where neither the Authors nor the Reviewers know each other's identities.
   3. The review has a written format and concludes with an unambiguous recommendation as to whether the article should be published or rejected.
   4. The list of Reviewers collaborating with the Journal is published annually in the last issue of the year, the fourth quarterly issue. It is also made available on the website after all four issues have been sent to print.
   5. A sample review form in downloadable format is available here.
   6. Ethical guidelines for peer Reviewers are available here.