Scholarly Material

There is no editor, no desk rejection, no arbitary decision on publication, this is peer-review in it’s purist form. Submit a pre-print manuscript, pay the processing charge (most of which goes to our paid reviewers) and get a polite and thoughtful but robust review from 3 independent experts. Our reviews are robust and public, so we’re challanging publishers to accept manuscripts based on our reivews alone while providing discounted APCs to match. This speeds up the publication process and puts authors in control.

Our reivews don’t indicate quality with a binary reject/accept recommendation and instead review to a quality rubrik providing a public 5-part score to help promote high quality, innoative work stand out.

Technical Material

Peer review is an excellent

Eligibility

For the peer-review process to have meaning reviewers must have deep expertise in the field. We require reviewers to meet the same stringent criteria as any other journal.

Scholarly Material

Reviewers shall be recognised as active researchers in the field. This would typically require them to have a PhD or demonstrate an equivalent track record via professional qualifications (e.g. CEng), appointments, or recommendations from colleagues. They would usually have a record as the first or corresponding on several recent relevant publications.

Technical Material

Reviewers shall be recognised as experts in the field. This would typically require them to at least hold a MSc with two year’s relevant experience, a PhD, or demonstrate an equivalent track record via professional qualifications (e.g. CEng), appointments, or recommendations from colleagues. They must be able to prove an awareness of contemporary best practice through relevant publications or employment.