A submitted paper is first received by the Editorial Team who screen out inappropriate or incomplete submissions, communicate with authors to acknowledge or reject and send the retained papers to the appropriate journal.
The Editorial Team then assign 2-3 appropriate peer reviewers who have expressed interest in reviewing.
It is our aim as a journal to encourage alternative approaches to academic writing. Well-documented discussion pieces, pieces which have a strong, possibly first-person, authorial voice are also welcome and should be reviewed in their own terms. Reviewers should be encouraged to focus on basics of competent writing, relevance, appropriate support from literature (not always required), argumentation, quality of evidence and to look for quality beyond generic structure. We do not want to reject or accept articles simply because they do or do not conform to basic generic patterns suitable for reporting experimental studies. We do not currently accept enough qualitative studies. They are rejected too often because they do not conform to experimental study norms.
When reviews come back, editors must make a decision: