PlaNext uses a mixture of blind and open peer review, meaning that:
Open peer review does not mean that referees should contact authors directly, or that authors should contact referees. All queries should be directed through PlaNext editorial board. Referees should contact the editor in chief or the journalmanager confidentially should the need arise in the case of, for example, a concern over a matter of publication ethics.
PlaNext invites referees to ensure that any studies published in PlaNext were conducted, analysed and reported in high quality. Referees are not to judge on importance and qualification for publication however, the managing editor is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript, based on the referees' comments. Referees are welcome to give feedback and/or comment either on a manuscript they have reviewed and/or on decisions made on that manuscript, or on the review process in general.
We invite practitioners and academics to be part of the review process. If you would like to volunteer, please contact us via email at www.aesop-youngacademics.net, and we will come back to you as soon we see your message. With your message please be sure to submit a recent CV and short bio on your background and qualifications.
Referees should ensure the confidentiality of the review process especially if referees choose to discuss the manuscript they review with a colleague. PlaNext uses an open form of peer review, meaning that authors may know (if you have chosen to) who has reviewed their work. Therefore, please do not make any comments that you do not wish the author to see. Referees should make a direct contact with the editor or the journal manager if they have any serious concerns about a manuscript from a publication ethics perspective, especially any case of plagiarism.AESOP-Young Academics
Before writing your review you may find it helpful to browse our instructions for authors. We do not need you to comment on a manuscript’s importance to general readers and the field. However, we would like you to provide comments on the “scientific” reliability, methodological approach, references, presentations of results, writing quality, and ethical conduct. Referees are to