Flow uses a single-anonymous model of peer review. The author does not know the identity of the reviewers, but the reviewers know the identity of the author.

Articles (Research Articles, Flow Rapids, Case Studies, and Review Articles) are assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor who will give rapid feedback to the authors initially (usually within 10 days). Once the manuscript is approved for peer review, we seek the advice and recommendations of two or three expert reviewers before the Associate Editor makes a final decision. Interim decisions requiring revisions may be made prior to final acceptance of a paper. An article may be rejected without review if the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor determines that the topic is inappropriate or of if the work is of insufficient quality to merit peer review.

Decisions on other article types such as Editorials, Corrigenda etc. are made by the Editor in Chief, who may consult expert referees or other Editorial Board Members.

Movies, either of experiments or simulations are considered as integral to the paper and therefore will form part of what is refereed. Other supplementary material, not essential for understanding the paper will be assessed by the Associate Editor handling the submission but it will not be refereed.

This journal allows co-reviewing, meaning an invited reviewer can work with a more junior colleague to review a manuscript for the purpose of reviewer training. If you are the original reviewer invited by the journal, you must:

• Contact the Associate Editor who invited you, to ask them to approve the co-review
• When you submit your review, add the co-reviewer’s name to the ‘Confidential comments to the Editor’ section of the referee report.

If you are the co-reviewer, you must assess any competing interests you may have, and either decline to be a co-reviewer, or declare any competing interests you may have to the journal by emailing the Associate Editor handling the paper you are co-reviewing.

Please see Cambridge's co-reviewing policy for more details.

Appeals process

Flow has an appeal procedure which provides authors with the opportunity to respond to the editorial decision on their manuscript, should they think that their manuscript was treated in an unfair manner during the peer-review process. Appeals will only be considered if they refer to a specific manuscript and must be based on evidence that either (1) an editor or reviewer made a significant factual error/a major misunderstanding of a manuscript, or (2) the integrity of the editorial decision-making process was compromised. Authors have the right to appeal to the Associate Editor or Editor-in-Chief against any decision taken on their manuscript at any stage. An appeal will be considered at the discretion of the Editorial Board of the Journal. If you have submitted an appeal and are awaiting an outcome, you should not submit your manuscript for publication elsewhere until you have notified this journal that you wish to withdraw your manuscript from consideration.

How do I appeal?

Step 1: Requests to have the decision on a submission re-considered should be made in the first instance to the Associate Editor who handled the submission and made the decision. Send a rebuttal letter to the Associate Editor, explaining clearly why you disagree with the decision on your manuscript and including a detailed response to any points of contention in the referees' reports. The Associate Editor will consider your appeal and either invite you to submit a revised paper or confirm the original decision.

Step 2: In case you remain unsatisfied with the Associate Editor's response after Step 1 or at any stage should you consider that your submission was treated unfairly, you should send a letter of appeal to the Editor-in-Chief via the Journal email (flowadmin@cambridge.org). Your letter should explain clearly the grounds for your appeal and be based on rational arguments. 

Step 3: The Editor-in-Chief will consider the grounds of your appeal and if he considers there to be a prima facie case to consider may assign another Flow Associate Editor or Advisory Board Member to consider the appeal in detail. All appeal requests are handled on a case-by-case basis and the Editor-in-Chief's decision is final. Appeals are normally considered on the basis of whether or not the process of review was conducted appropriately. Papers will not routinely be sent for further review