The peer review process


Each manuscript is reviewed by MWP staff for relevancy to the individual journal. Should a question arise, the editorial coordinator or the production editor will contact the editor in chief (or an appropriate editor), who then decides whether the manuscript should be transferred to another MWP journal, editorially rejected owing to scope, or retained for review by the journal to which it was submitted. The professional and academic editors then together make a decision based on the reviewers' comments.

Manuscripts must represent technically competent work; however, the primary criterion for acceptance or rejection will be the work's level of practical or reader interest. Otherwise, the review process and publication process for practice periodicals is the same as for the journals. If the manuscript has numerous grammatical mistakes that inhibit the ability of a reader to understand the arguments, you may recommend rejection without writing a detailed review.


There are several types of decision possible:

- Accept the manuscript as submitted
- Accept it with minor revision
- Invite the authors to submit a major revision of the manuscript before a final decision is reached
- Reject, typically because it does not fit the criteria outlined above of originality, importance to the field, cross-discipline interest, or sound methodology


If you have reasons to believe that the material is not original or has been plagiarised, please alert the handling editor or the editorial office.



MWP is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication. To avoid delay in publication of important scientific work, we request that reviewers return their comments within the time indicated at invitation. If any unanticipated difficulties arise that may prevent you from submitting the review on time, contact the editorial office immediately.