Review Policy

Peer review is used to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journal and book publishers. Now Publishers' reviewers play an essential role in maintaining our high standards of publishing, and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.


Initial manuscript evaluation

The publisher first evaluates all manuscripts which are received. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have insufficient market potential, make poor use of the English language, or are outside the scope of our publishing program. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to an editor or other expert for review. Whenever possible, reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise.

Type of Peer Review

Now Publishers employs single blind reviewing, where the reviewer remains anonymous to the author throughout the process.

Reviewer reports

Reviewers of journal articles are asked to comment upon the following:

  • Originality
  • Methodological soundness
  • Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
  • Correctly references previous relevant work
They will also be asked to give a recommendation on whether or not to accept the work for publication. The decision will be passed back to the authors together with any supporting information available.

Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but referees may, if so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript.

How long does the review process take?

The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the reviewer, though we aim to receive initial review comments within 8-10 weeks after receiving the manuscript. If the reviewer’s report is not definitive, a further expert opinion will be sought.


On receipt of a new book proposal, for a standalone book we send this for review to an expert in the field, a person selected by the Publisher, or to the Series Editor in case the submission is made to an Open Access book series. If the scope of a book proposal lies outside the area of expertise of the Series Editor, they may ask an Editorial Board member to assess the proposal. Reviewers are invited to comment about the academic relevance of the proposed title, the perceived quality and whether they think there are topics missing in the proposed outline.

Feedback and recommendations from the Series Editor and/or the reviewer are shared with authors for their information. If the author accepts the suggested changes from the reviewer, then the Series Editor together with the Publisher make the decision to accept the book project, after which the author is offered a Publishing Agreement. Acceptance is always on the condition that recommended revisions made at the time of review are inserted into the final manuscript. If the Series Editor or the reviewer deem the proposal to be out of scope or not of the expected quality, or the author is unwilling to follow the reviewers’ recommendations, then the proposal is rejected outright.

Once the final manuscript is received from the author, it is sent back to the original reviewer, or the Series Editor for their comments and approval. The Series Editor and/or the reviewer acknowledge that revisions recommended in the original review have been included into the final manuscript, where after we send the manuscript files to our production team for editing and type-setting. If the recommended revisions have not been included in the final manuscript, it is sent back to the author for them to action this. Typically, a book manuscript will go through two rounds of revisions prior to the Open Access version being published online.