However, authors who wish to mask their identity during peer review may choose to do so. Reviewers may also choose to reveal their identity to the authors post-review.

All submissions will receive an initial desk review by an Editor, and possibly an Associate Editor. This provides a speedy rejection when a rejection is warranted. Submissions that are deemed to fall within the scope of the journal and which demonstrate a high and rigorous standard will be sent out for peer review. We require submission of data (or links to the data) for articles not rejected immediately, unless this is for some stated reason difficult (e.g., data are owned by someone else). Data will be public when articles are published. See Research Transparency for more information.

Usually the review will involve one Consulting Editor and another reviewer. Informative reviews from earlier submissions of the same article (with authors' responses to them) may reduce the number of required reviewers, thus speeding the review process and reducing the total burden on potential reviewers.

For those articles that are sent out for peer review, JDM endeavours to provide authors with timely feedback (with a typical turnaround time of around 2 months). However, the journal is reliant on the promptness of  expert reviewers, who provide a valuable service, free-of-charge, to the journal and the field. JDM regards reviews as information, not votes. Where possible, JDM will support authors in revising their work before publication.

Invited reviewers considering working with a junior colleague for training purposes should refer to Cambridge's policy on co-reviewing.

For more information, please contact the Editorial Office.

To appeal an editorial decision, contact the Editors and specify the reason for your appeal. Your appeal will be reviewed by the Editors. The final decision regarding your appeal will rest with the Editors.