The Python Papers' Review Policy

0. Preamble

The Python Papers (ISSN 1834-3147) is intended to be both an industrial journal as well as an academic journal, in the sense that the editorial board welcomes submissions relating to all aspects of the Python programming language, its tools and libraries, and community, both of academic and industrial inclinations. The Python Papers aims to be a publication for the Python community at large. In order to cater for this, The Python Papers seeks to publish submissions under two main streams: the industrial stream (technically reviewed) and the academic stream (peer-reviewed). This policy statement seeks to clarify the processes of technical review and peer-review in The Python Papers.

1. Right of submission author(s) to choose streams

The submission author(s); that is, the author(s) of the article or code or any submissions in any other forms deemed by The Python Papers editorial board (hereafter known as 'editorial board') as being suitable; reserves the right to choose if he/she wants his/her submission to be in the industrial stream, where it will be technically reviewed, or in the academic stream, where it will be peer-reviewed. It is also the onus of the submission author(s) to nominate the stream. The editorial board defaults all submissions to be industrial (technical review) in event of non-nomination by the submission author(s) but the editorial board reserves the right to place such submissions into the academic stream if it deems fit. The editorial board also reserves the right to place submissions nominated for the academic stream in the technical stream if it deems fit.

2. Right of submission author(s) to nominate potential reviewers

The submission author(s) can exercise the right to nominate up to 4 potential reviewers (hereafter known as "external reviewer") for his/her submission if the submission author(s) choose to be peer-reviewed. When this right is exercised, the submission author(s) must declare any prior relationships or conflict of interests with the nominated potential reviewers. The final decision to accept the nominated reviewer(s) rests with the Chief Reviewer (see section 4 for further information on the role of the Chief Reviewer).

3. Right of submission author(s) to exclude potential reviewers

The submission author(s) can exercise the right to recommend excluding any reasonable numbers of potential reviewers for his/her submission. When this right is exercised, the submission author(s) must indicate the grounds on which such exclusion should be recommended. Decisions for the editorial board to accept or reject such exclusions will be solely based on the grounds as indicated by the submission author(s).

4. Peer-review process

Upon receiving a submission for peer-review, the Editor-in-Chief (hereafter known as "EIC") may choose to reject the submission or the EIC will nominate a Chief Reviewer (hereafter known as "CR") from the editorial board to chair the peer-review process of that submission. The EIC can nominate himself/herself as CR for the submission. The CR will send out the submission to TWO or more external reviewers to be reviewed. The CR reserves the right not to call upon the nominated potential reviewers and/or to call upon any of the reviewers nominated for exclusion by the submission author(s). The CR may also concurrently send the submission to one or more Associate Editor(s) (hereafter known as "AE") for review. Hence, a submission in the academic stream will be reviewed by at least three persons, the CR and two external reviewers. Typically, a submission may be reviewed by three to four persons: the EIC as CR, an AE, and two external reviewers. There is no upper limit to the number of reviews in a submission. Upon receiving the review from external reviewer(s) and/or AE(s), the CR decides on one of the following options: accept without revision, accept with revision or reject; and notifies the submission author(s) of the decision on behalf of the EIC. If the decision is "accept with revision", the CR will provide a deadline to the submission author(s) for revisions to be done and will automatically accept the revised submission if the CR deems that all revision(s) were done; however, the CR reserves the right to move to reject the original submission if the revision(s) were not carried out by the stipulated deadline by the CR. If the decision is "reject", the submission author(s) may choose to revise for future re-submission. Decision(s) by CR or EIC are final.

5. Technical review process

Upon receiving a submission for technical review, the Editor-in-Chief (hereafter known as "EIC") may choose to reject the submission or the EIC will nominate a Chief Reviewer (hereafter known as "CR") from the editorial board to chair the review process of that submission. The EIC can nominate himself/herself as CR for the submission. The CR may decide to accept or reject the submission after reviewing or may seek another AE's opinions before reaching a decision. The CR will notify the submission author(s) of the decision on behalf of the EIC. Decision(s) by CR or EIC is final.

6. Main difference between peer-review and technical review

The process of peer-review and technical review are similar, with the main difference being that in the peer review process, the submission is reviewed both internally by the editorial board and externally by external reviewers (nominated by submission author(s) and/or nominated by EIC/CR). In a technical review process, the submission is reviewed by the editorial board. The editorial board retains the right to additionally undertake an external review if it is deemed necessary.

7. Umbrella philosophy

The Python Papers' editorial board firmly believes that all good (technically and/or scholarly/academic) submissions should be published when appropriate and that the editorial board is integral to refining all submissions. The board believes in giving good advice to all submission author(s) regardless of the final decision to accept or reject and hopes that advice to rejected submissions will assist in their revisions.