All submissions will go through an initial screening from the journal editorial team. Submissions that are selected to proceed to peer review are allocated to a number of expert reviewers including a dedicated cross-disciplinary reviewer (usually from a discipline distinct from the author/s home discipline/s) to provide feedback on the clarity of communication and broad significance of the scholarship. To maximise the impact and accessibility of contributions, we urge authors to write with a broader than usual audience in mind, minimise their use of disciplinary jargon, and clearly define any jargon that is unavoidable.

For most content types the journal uses double blind peer review, meaning that both author and reviewer identities are concealed from each other throughout the review process unless a reviewer formally signs a review. Editorials, Commentaries and Dialogues will use a single blind peer review process with only the reviewer identity being blinded.

As standard the journal seeks three expert reviewers including a cross-disciplinary reviewer. Expedited peer review involves either fewer reviewers and/or a shorter turnaround time for review.

Themed collection submissions go through exactly the same peer review process as standalone submissions.