The Evaluation of Submissions
To ensure its integrity, the refereeing process for all Unsolicited Contributions to the AJP is double-blind: the names and institutional affiliations of authors are revealed neither to referees nor members of the Editorial Board; likewise, referees and Board members remain anonymous both to each other and to the author in each particular case. Without the prior permission of the Editor, referees and Board members will not show to other people material supplied to them for evaluation. All published submissions have been anonymously reviewed by at least two referees.
The evaluation process has up to five sequential stages, as follows:
- preliminary vetting by a member of the Editorial Team
- refereeing, 1
- refereeing, 2
- scrutiny of submission and referees' reports by a member of the Editorial Team, Editorial Board or other designated expert
- final decision by the Editor
A paper may be rejected, or returned to the corresponding author for revision, at any stage in this process. Successful completion of each stage will lead to the next. Authors should note that positive referees' reports are not a sufficient condition for acceptance. Final decision about acceptance will be taken by the Editor.
In recent years the Journal has been accepting only about 6% of submissions.
Conflicts of Interest
The Journal's software prevents any person from input to, or even observation of, assessments or decisions concerning their own submissions.
The Editor (Stewart Candlish) will not submit Articles or be commissioned
to write Critical Notices during his term of office. (He may submit replies to
Articles or Discussion Notes which involve his work. In this case, he will not
participate in the process of assessment, and an Associate Editor or member of the Editorial Board will serve as Proxy Editor throughout the process.) Members of the Editorial Team may be commissioned to do a maximum of two Reviews and/or Book Notes each per annum.
If an Associate Editor or member of the Editorial Board submits an Article, a Discussion Note, or is commissioned to write a Critical Notice, then s/he will not be involved, in any way, in the assessment process. The Editor will not participate in the evaluation of material submitted by a close colleague, joint grant holder, former student, etc.