Subjectivity follows a double-blind peer review process. This means that the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and the reviewers do not know the identity of the author (or each other). Authors are required to remove identifying information from the article and any accompanying material (such as responses to reviewers) until after the article is accepted.
Although the Editors strive for the most timely and efficient process for peer review, our over-arching goal is to provide substantive reviews to our authors along with constructive suggestions for improvements and clarifications when needed. We have no targets for rejection and work with authors to make a manuscript acceptable, sometimes via multiple rounds of revision and feedback.
Before being accepted for publication in Subjectivity, manuscripts must be reviewed by at least two referees. These are selected from the relevant worldwide research community by the Managing Editor, seeking to avoid any known collaborations, common affiliations, or conflicts of interest. Where manuscripts require major revision, revised submissions are normally re-evaluated by the original referees, but articles requiring only minor revisions might go back out to original reviewers to check they are happy with revisions or re-evaluated just by the Editors.
The same review process applies to articles submitted for Special Issues and Special Collections as for any other articles. Guest Editors may suggest peer reviewers, but the final selection of reviewers rests with the Managing Editor. Articles submitted by Guest Editors themselves, or by members of the Editorial Advisory Board do not receive any special treatment, and must meet the same quality standards as any other accepted submission.