Peer Review

The Lahey Journal utilizes a double-blind peer review process. All submissions are initially reviewed by the Managing Editor for completeness and consistency with the Aims and Scope of the journal. If these are satisfied, then each submission is then sent with the authors blinded for anonymous peer review. Once all reviews are received by the Editors, the editorial decision is sent to the corresponding author together with anonymous reviewer comments. If revisions are necessary authors are expected to return these within the timeframe outlined in the editorial decision letter.

The final decision to publish a submission is the responsibility of The Lahey Journal editorial board. This decision is based on the reviewers’ recommendations, author revisions, adherence to ethical standards of publication, and relevance to the Aims and Scope of the journal. The Editors are committed to an objective, fair, and unbiased peer review process, and expect all peer reviewers to adhere to the principles of COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, the full text of which is available here: https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf.

Highlights include that peer reviewers should:

• Declare if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review or have any competing interests that would render them biased.
• Only agree to review a manuscript if they can complete it within the journal’s timeline.
• Decline to review a manuscript that is similar to one they may have in progress or under review elsewhere.
• Not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript without obtaining permission from the journal.
• Keep all manuscript and review details confidential.
• Notify the journal if they suspect the identity of the author(s) in case this may raise any potential conflict of interest.
• Ensure the review is based on the works merit and is not influenced by any personal bias.
• Be objective and constructive in their feedback to help the author(s) improve their manuscript.
• Be specific in their criticism and provide supporting arguments and references.
• Refrain from any derogatory comments or personal criticism of the author(s).
• Not suggest that the author include citations to the reviewer’s own work to enhance their citation count. Suggestions must be based on valid academic reasons.
• Remember that it is the authors’ paper and not try to rewrite it in their own preferred style if it is already sound and clear. Suggestions to improve clarity, however, are important.