Down Syndrome Research and Practice
Editorial Process
Further policies and guidelines
We aim to be efficient, courteous and constructive in our work with authors during
the editorial processes.
To achieve this, the review process is organised as follows:
- Initial submission screening
Submissions are first reviewed by an internal editorial review committee. The editorial
review committee determines if the submission is within the scope of the journal
and that it scores highly against our publication criteria (above). Those that succeed
on these measures proceed to the next stage, others are rejected. We aim to complete
the initial screening of submissions within two weeks of receipt.
- Preliminary editorial review
Submissions that pass the preliminary screening are then assigned to an internal
editor who examines the paper in detail, considering the quality of its content
and the context (related literature, originality, etc.). A brief report is prepared
and, in discussion with the Editorial Board, the Editor decides whether the submission
should be accepted subject to formal peer review, rejected with suggestions for
revision and resubmission, or rejected at this point. We aim to complete the preliminary
editorial review of submissions within four weeks of receipt.
- Peer review
Submissions that are accepted for peer review are sent to at least two expert peer
reviewers who are asked to assess the technical and scientific merits of the work
(see below for further detail). The reviews provided are considered by the Editorial
Board and the internal editorial review committee and a final decision is made whether
to accept the submission for publication. Acceptance may be conditional on modest
amendments to the submission. If more extensive amendments are suggested, then submitters
may be requested to resubmit. We aim to complete peer review within 14 weeks of
receipt of the submission.
- Editing
Upon acceptance and subsequent to the completion of any requested amendments, editing
of the contribution for publication commences. We often suggest revised titles and
rewrite the summaries of contributions so the conclusions are clear to a broad readership.
After acceptance, we ensure that the text and figures are readable and clear to
a broad audience, and edit papers to confirm to a common style. Proofs are sent
to authors for approval before publication. Authors are encouraged to discuss proposed
changes with our editors, but we reserve the right to make the final decision about
matters of style and presentation. We aim to complete editing within 8 weeks of
receipt of the final, amended submission, though (in part) this is dependent on
authors.
- Publication
Once editing is complete, articles are published online. Online publication may
occur some months before the contribution is included in a printed issue of the
journal. Some contributions may only be published online (we will indicate this
when accepting the contribution for publication). We aim to publish online within
2 weeks of completion of editing. When also publishing in print, we aim to publish
within 6 months of online publication.
Peer review
Down Syndrome Research and Practice operates a blinded peer review process
(neither authors nor reviewers are aware of the others' identities). Authors and/or
reviewers may choose to be open about their identity during the review process,
if they wish, but it is not required.
Authors are asked if they wish to exclude any specific academic editors or reviewers
from the peer review of their article. The editorial team will respect these requests
so long as this does not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of
the article. Authors are also asked to suggest possible reviewers, though whilst
we will consider these suggestions, we make no guarantee to approach reviewers suggested
by authors.
Appeals of decisions
We do not reject papers without what we believe are good reasons. If you wish to
appeal a rejection you should in the first instance contact the editor, explaining
in detail your reasons for the appeal. We will discuss the paper again with the
Editorial Board and may seek re-review or we may reject again without further review.
We cannot consider second appeals.