Refereeing and administrative procedure

The managing editors are responsible for all administrative matters: matters of appearance, file handling, electronic storage and communication with authors and academic editors. The academic editors are responsible for all academic decisions ie for deciding which papers shall be published and for checking (via referees if necessary) on any substantial rewriting which is necessary.

Papers are submitted to managing editors. The managing editors check suitability of format. If the format is unsuitable then the managing editors will warn the author(s) that reformatting in a more suitable format will be necessary if the paper is accepted. To save time and effort they may immediately reject clearly unsuitable papers. They then pass the paper on to one of the academic editors, who is willing to take responsibility for the paper. This editor is then responsible for (1) immediate rejection or (2) refereeing the paper her/himself or obtaining suitable referee's report(s), see notes below, (3) dealing with any major rewriting requested by the referee. To save time and duplication of effort the editor may communicate directly with the author(s) about this if (s)he wishes, but it is important that the author is not given the impression that such rewriting will guarantee acceptance, see notes below. Finally the responsible editor either (4) recommends rejection or (5) recommends acceptance (with a short supporting case that includes the referee's recommendations).

The managing editors then circulate the entire academic editorial board with the case for rejection or acceptance, including details of the paper's authorship and location so that other editors can read it. In the case that rejection is recommended, there is a one week period allowed for other editors to make a case for acceptance. If no such case is made, then the paper is rejected. In the case that acceptance is recommended (either by the original responsible editor or by another editor) there is then a four week period for email discussion. If during the discussion any editor recommends rejection (with an appropriate supporting case) then, after a similar one week period for reprieve has elapsed, the paper is rejected. If two further editors second the recommendation (ie three editors now recommend acceptance and no editor recommends rejection) then the paper is accepted. If no decision has been arrived at by the end of the discussion period (eg if no discussion has taken place) then the managing editors appoint two further (willing) editors to evaluate the case. The paper is accepted only if both these seconding editors recommend acceptance. The three editors who accept a paper -- the nominating (responsible) editor and the two seconding editors -- are identified at the front of the finally published paper. The purpose of this is to prevent seconding becoming a "rubber-stamping" exercise. A paper is deemed "timed-out" (and rejected) if no final decision has been made about the paper within twelve weeks of the initial recommendation. The managing editors have the discretion to extend this time-out period if there seems to be a good reason for the delay.

After acceptance, the managing editors are responsible for obtaining any further (minor) corrections from the author(s), including any reformatting which is necessary, and for publication.

Notes :

Author(s) may suggest a suitable responsible editor (who nevertheless will only become the responsible editor if (s)he is so willing). Since rejection decisions are taken by the entire board, there should be no conflict of loyalties arising here.

Authors are reminded that being asked for corrections or to rewrite parts of their work (usually at the request of the referee) does not imply that the paper will be accepted after correction. Technically this is an invitation to resubmit, with no guarantee of acceptance.

Academic editors may submit papers. However such papers are treated in exactly the same way as other papers with (of course) the author excluded from discussion. If a managing editor submits a paper then another (or an ad hoc) managing editor will deal with all the correspondence over the paper. Other editors should feel no obligation at all to treat papers submitted by editors with any special favour.

The responsible editor for a submission to GT is expected to consult one or more external referees, unless the case for rejection is clear.

Editors should consider, before serving as responsible editor for a paper or seconding a paper, whether there might be an issue of conflict of interests. Examples when such conflicts might exist include: (a) The content of the paper reflects graduate work done under the editor's direction; (b) The editor is a current collaborator with an author of the submitted paper on a project referred to in the paper.

Return to the GT home page.

Outdated Archival Version