We aim for a light-touch review process, aimed mostly at keeping the discussion relevant (no SPAM), polite (conducive to debate), and legal (no libel, obscenity or copyright infringement). RofASSS is conceived as similar to a post-publication review process so that comments upon the goodness or substance of contributions is open – to be made in the debate on the site, rather than hidden as part of a review process. If in doubt, we will err on the side of publication rather than rejection; we will have a clear reason for any rejection and explain our reasons in an email. There may be elements of typo/English correction or formatting that need improvement before publication.
The process will go as follows:
- RofASSS will accept submissions via a web-form with the following information: title, author, e-mail (for administrative purposes), type of submission, suggested keywords, the URL/DOI of what it comments on, and the actual content.
- The editor will only desk-reject anything obviously abusive, illegal or redundant (e.g. plagiarised).
- If the editor has any doubt as to the suitability of the submission he/she will send it to a relevant member of the editorial board for assessment.
- The editorial board member would either simply accept the item or reply with a reason for rejection based on the RofASSS guidelines.
- If rejected, reasons for rejection at stages 2 or 3 would be communicated to the submitter.
- Suitable meta-data would be added to accepted items to track the type, keywords, discussion chain, and author.
- The elements of the item would undergo minimal formatting, including the addition of a suggested citation.
- The item would be published on the site with output to RSS feeds and tweets to a Twitter feed.