All Water Practice™ articles undergo an anonymous peer review by experts (typically two) chosen on a paper-by-paper basis. After a preliminary evaluation for suitability, submissions are forwarded to expert referees. Expert reviews help authors to identify and correct flaws, such as in experimentation and interpretation of results, as well as provide direction for future investigation.

The success of any peer-reviewed journal resides substantially on the support of its technical community and the willingness of its members to participate in peer review. WEF is thankful to those professionals who donate their time in assisting the review process.


Reviewing for Water Practice

Peer review is organized and administered by the Water Practice staff, while the Issue Editor (or Issue Co-Editors) evaluates the reviewers' comments and makes the decision on publication. Inquiries and correspondence should be directed to the Water Practice office, rather than the Issue Editor.

Reviewers are expected to notify the office if they have collaborated professionally with any of the authors, had communication with the authors concerning the submitted work, or have any other potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers are expected to treat solicitations from Water Practice as confidential communications and are not to expose any information concerning the submission to another party without the consent of the Water Practice office.

The peer review process for Water Practice is independent of the selection process used for WEF conferences and all submissions are evaluated on their own merits. Consequently, reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript as it stands, irrespective of previous presentation (including conference presentation) or other work by the same authors.

After agreeing to the review, referees are allowed to access and download the manuscript using the online submission and review website. Reviewers will also be given access to a review page, which contains standardized questions as well as space for commentary and criticism. The manuscript and review form may also be sent via email, if preferred. Reviewers are expected to provide a few paragraphs of constructive critique of the manuscript. Reviewers may supply additional materials (such as a marked manuscript) and may attach other sheets in support of their comments.

Reviewers are expected to return their reviews in a timely fashion, notifying the Water Practice office if delays are expected.


Decisions

Reviewers are asked to make recommendations regarding publication, but the final decision rests with the Issue Editor. In cases of disagreement among reviewers, the Issue Editor has complete discretion. In all cases, reviewers will be notified when a decision is made on the manuscript. Occasionally, select reviewers will be asked to view a revised version of the manuscript and provide a second evaluation. 

Referee comments will be transmitted to the authors, regardless of the decision made on the manuscript. However, inflammatory or abusive language may be removed. Confidential comments to the editor are not released to the authors.

Reviewers and authors with questions about the peer review process should contact the Managing Editor directly:

Michael Mullins
mmullins@wef.org


Additional Peer Review Resources

What is peer review? There are many varieties of peer review, from bioethical reviews of clinical research, governmental reviews of policy proposals, and even the open review of software code. The journal Nature has a superb collection of articles discussing the practice of peer review in scientific and technical journals, as well as a blog highlighting new developments in peer-review practice:
http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html
http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/