Peer review policy

The review process is a crucial feature of STEPP functioning. It ensures assessment and constructive feedback to Authors and enable Editors to make a judgement about the manuscripts. Special Issues have different peer review procedures. Authors contributing to these projects receive full details of peer review process.
There are three stages of review process in STEEP: initial manuscript evaluation, Editors evaluation and double-blind peer review.

Initial manuscript evaluation

All new submitted manuscripts are examined for completeness and adherence to the guidelines posted at the Information for Authors. The manuscripts that pass the stage are assigned to Editors for evaluation.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at the initial manuscript evaluation stage are informed within 1 week.

Editors evaluation

Editors make a decision about sending the submitted manuscript to reviewers. Manuscripts rejected at this stage have serious conceptual and methodological problems or are outside the field of STEPP.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed within 2 weeks.

Double-blind peer review

STEPP uses double-blind peer review, which means that the identities of reviewers and authors are hidden from each other. Reviewers (at least 2 experts) are selected according to their expertise also we welcome suggestions for reviewers from authors, however these recommendations may not be used. Typically the manuscripts are reviewed within 90 days. Reviewers and Editors may request more than one revision of a manuscript, and alternative reviewers may also be invited to review the manuscript at any time.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate a manuscript for:

  • Originality and significance of contribution; 
  • Coverage of appropriate existing literature;
  • Adequacy of methodology, analysis and interpretation;
  • Structure of manuscript;
  • Connection between objectives and conclusions;
  • Completeness of abstract;
  • References.