The journal editor will exercise an initial quality screening process before selecting articles for refereeing. The editor's decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into.
If an article is deemed acceptable to enter the refereeing process, it will be distributed (with all authorial identifiers removed) to two appropriate peer referees.
If an article is deemed by both referees to be acceptable for the refereed section with minor changes, it is then revised by the author, edited, and included in the refereed section.
If an article is deemed acceptable but with major changes suggested by one or both referees, it is then revised by the author and returned for further assessment to the one or more referees who requested a second review. At this stage referees can still choose to reject the article if they feel that the desired changes have not been made. Authors receive only one opportunity for revision in each refereeing round, however this does not preclude them from reworking an article and resubmitting for a future issue.
If an article is deemed by both referees to have some promise or interest but to need significantly more development, it is usually suggested to the author that they consider cutting it down to a shorter word count and reworking it as a commentary style article in order to gain wider exposure and feedback on work in progress. (Other articles are sent specifically for commentary publication, however, so readers should not assume that commentary articles have been 'rejected' as that is often not the case.)
If there is a split decision, i.e. one acceptance and one rejection, the author has the option to either withdraw the article and revise it before further reviewing, or request that the article be sent in its current form to a third referee for a casting vote. In these instances the editor consults with authors and referees so that the author can be guided as to which is likely to be the most productive choice, however the final decision rests with authors. At all stages refereeing remains anonymous.
The Refereed Section:
The refereed section contains only articles that have been approved by two independent referees as suitable for publication as a scholarly article of international standard. Less than 30% of assessed manuscripts are accepted for this section.
The Commentary Section:
This section contains a much wider range of work, from interesting student essays on under-theorised topics that may offer potential for future research, to ?water-testing pieces by senior researchers who want to flag research in progress to help them locate other projects and researchers with common interests around the globe. Theres also scope in the commentary section for practical pieces by industry writers who want to critique the academic perspective or offer how-to advice. There are no ?rules for this section. It could include polemical opinion pieces about industry issues or controversies designed to stimulate discussion and generate feedback via the PRaxis discussion facilities; overviews of research projects that are in the early stages and would benefit from peer feedback to refine ideas or methods; or short responses to earlier work published on the site. Commentary articles are edited to ensure a high standard of readability, however ultimate responsibility for their quality rests entirely with authors, as these pieces have not been approved by PRisms editorial board.
The ViewPoints Section
This section is for your short, pithy 'rants' about issues relating to communication that concern you and that you feel need and deserve a public airing. Please keep your ViewPoints submissions under 1000 words.