All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review. The author shall be informed in case of preliminary rejection.

Articles considered of potential interest will be sent for formal review, typically to two reviewers. The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:

• Accept, with or without revisions
• Invite the authors to revise their articles to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
• Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission
• Reject completely, specifying reasons.

The editors may have to make a compromising decision based on conflicting advice from different reviewers. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation one way or the other.

Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We therefore ask that reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested.