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 full length books are asked to concentrate on comprehesiveness of topic coverage and clarity of exposition. The objective here is to improve the manuscript as much as possible before publication. The report is shared with the author in its entirety.

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.