The Australasian Journal of Logic

Established July 2003
Managing Editor: Greg Restall
ISSN: 1448-5052

The Process

Once a paper is submitted to the journal, it is logged in our database of submissions and then assigned to one of the editors, who will manage the refereeing process.

[From the Editor to Referees]

At first, the editor reads the paper and judges its suitability for refereeing. If the paper is deemed unsuitable (because it falls outside the scope of the journal) the editor puts the case for this decision to the board, and if the board agrees, a rejection letter is sent to the author, and the database is updated with the rejection. If, on the other hand, the paper is deemed to be suitable for refereeing, the editor chooses two referees (one of which might be the editor him- or herself), and sends out a simple “can you referee this paper?” request. In this email, the editor sets an initial deadline of a month for the refereeing job. If the referee cannot referee the manuscript in this timeframe (academics are busy people, so this isn’t guaranteed), the editor both asks the referee for an alternate deadline, and contacts other potential referees, so as to minimise the time the manuscript is being refereed. The time this takes will vary from paper to paper. Once a referee accepts the job, the editor emails the anonymous manuscript to the referee, together with the refereeing form. Articles will be refereed blind, with the editor revealing no information about the identity of the author of the manuscript.

[From the Referees to the Editor]

The referees will write their reports on the paper, judging its compliance with the aims of the journal, and send them back to the editor by email. (Perhaps the editor will need to remind the referees of the deadline to ensure a timely turnaround.) We aim for the cycle from submission to the receipt of referees reports to take, on average, two months. The editor will archive the received referees reports in our records. He or she will decide what to recommend on the basis of the referees reports. There are three broad categories: accept, revise and reject. If, on the basis of the reports the editor judges that the paper needs revision before a decision to reject or accept can be made, he or she can contact the author directly, forwarding the reports and requesting the revision and resubmission. On the other hand, a decision to accept or reject requires the agreement of the other editors.

[From the Editor to the Board]

A decision to publish the paper can only proceed if two recommendations to publish are received (one of these can be from the editor managing the process), and if the editor agrees that the paper falls within the scope of the journal. Any recommendations for changes are forwarded to the author by the editor (with the referees’ reports), and the editor waits for the submission of the manuscript. If, on the other hand, the editor recommends rejection, a rejection letter is sent to the author (with the referees’ reports).

[From the Board to Publication]

The accepted papers are then formatted into house style and copy edited by the author and the editorial assistant. Each paper accepted contains the date of publication, the citation information, and a by-line naming the editor responsible for the refereeing of the paper.

[Special Cases]

Special cases arise when the editors themselves are involved as an author of a paper (or as an advisor of a student who submits a paper). Our practice in these cases is for the remaining editors to manage the process, so that fair and thorough refereeing standards are maintained.

The Request Letter

This is the email sent to referees to help them evaluate whether a paper is suitable for publication in the AJL. This should give you an idea of what to expect as an author or referee (or reader) of the journal.

Dear XXXX,

We have received a submission entitled YYYY to the Australasian Journal of Logic, and we would like to know if you could review the paper for us. The paper is ZZZ pages long.

The AJL has a policy of giving quick feedback to its authors. In the light of this, should you accept our invitation to referee this paper, we would expect to receive your report by email by z/z/zzzz. If this deadline seems too tight, but you would still like to review this paper for us, please nominate a deadline more suitable to you.

Thankyou for your time,

The Form

This is the email sent to referees to help them evaluate whether a paper is suitable for publication in the AJL. This should give you an idea of what to expect as an author or referee (or reader) of the journal.

Dear XXXX,

Thankyou for agreeing to referee the paper YYYY, which has been submitted for publication to the Australasian Journal of Logic.

This refereeing form is designed to make both your task as a referee and our task as editors less painful, and to give the author helpful feedback on her or his paper.

Please fill answer all of the questions and write as many comments as are required to explain (and justify) your responses to the editors and the author.

We will be expecting to recieve your report in an email to zz@zzzz by Z/Z/ZZZZ.

We appreciate your timely help in making the AJL a success!

Comments for the author and editors

(1) Significance

This paper

Please explain your answer:

(2) Originality

This paper

Explain your answer:

(3) Clarity

This paper

Explain your answer:

(4) General comments to the author:

(5) Judgement

This paper

Explain your answer:

(6) Confidence

You are

Explain your answer:

Comments for the editors only

(7) Other comments to the editors

(8) Referee Competence

If you haven't done this already, please explain which kind of papers you would be happy to referee for the AJL, and, if possible, estimate how many papers you feel that you could satisfactorily referee in a year.

Copyright © 2003, Philosophy Department, University of Melbourne.
Individual papers are copyright their authors.