Peer-review policy

Double-blind means the reviewer is not told who wrote the piece, and the author is not told who reviewed it. The desk is built so that those two facts stay apart.

What a reviewer receives

A single-use link. The page shows the title and the blinded text: the abstract at proposal stage, and the manuscript once one has been filed. It does not show the author’s name, email, affiliation, or CV. The originality statement and the short CV stay in the editorial file.

The reviewer sends one recommendation — accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject — with comments for the editors and comments for the author. After that, the link cannot be edited. Comments for the editors are not shown to the author. Comments for the author may be released with the editorial decision, without the reviewer’s name.

What the editor sees

The queue and the submission open on the blinded text. Author identity sits behind an explicit control, so it is not sitting on the screen while a reviewer is being chosen. Opening that control is recorded on the submission’s timeline.

The editor records one of four decisions: reject, invite a full manuscript, request revisions, or accept. A short note is saved with the decision and shown to the author.

Part III

The Faculty’s About page says that all scholarly submissions in Part III undergo double-blind review. The page does not define “Part III” any further. Articles and essays are the section described there as peer-reviewed. This site does not add a certification, a badge, or a claim the Faculty page does not make.