The journal applies a double blind peer review. Referees remain anonymous for the author and the author’s name is removed from the manuscript under review. Articles are assessed by two members of the editorial team and by two external referees. The assessment takes account of the article category (theory, research, practice or policy). The editorial team uses four different assessment forms, all of which apply academic criteria and take account of the purpose of the article. The editorial team aims to complete its assessment and provide feedback within two months.
The following responses are possible:
- The article is fit for publication.
- The article may be published after revision of the points highlighted by the referees.
- The article may only be published after a thoroughgoing revision.
- The article is not fit for publication.
The managing editor gathers the reviewers’ responses and feedback. A decision is then made as to whether an article may be published. If there is no agreement on the part of the referees, the editor-in-chief will make the final decision. He may also deploy the services of a fifth referee. Subsequently the managing editor provides the authors with a motivated editorial decision.
If the article requires thoroughgoing revision, as in option 3, the revised version will always be subjected to a further evaluation by at least one editorial team member. In addition, the editorial team reserves the right to subsequently reject any articles that it considers unsuitable for publication. Articles are published as soon as possible after approval.