In the first step, all papers are reviewed by an editorial committee consisting of 3 or more members of the editorial team to ensure their appropriateness and relevance to the framework of the journal. The prime purpose is to decide whether to send a paper for peer review and to give a rapid decision on those that are not. Papers which do not meet basic standards or are unlikely to be published irrespective of a positive peer review, for example because their novel contribution is insufficient or the relevance to the discipline is unclear, may be rejected at this point in order to avoid delays to authors who may wish to seek publication elsewhere Manuscripts are also excluded by the editors if there are major faults in the methodology of research. Authors can expect a decision from this stage of the review process within 2 weeks of submission. Manuscripts going forward to the review process are handled anonymously and comments are discussed in weekly editorial sessions. Reviews are then sent to the corresponding authors for proposed modifications and the new version of the manuscript would be peer-reviewed for a second time by one or two external reviewers. We aim to complete the review process within 4 weeks of the decision to review although occasionally delays do happen and authors should allow at least 6 weeks from submissions before contacting the journal. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to the final decision regarding acceptance.