Peer Review Policy
How peer review is conducted at Runnymede Academic Press.
Effective date: 1 September 2026
Our approach
Peer review at Runnymede Academic Press (RAP) is constructive in purpose. Our aim is to help authors find a sound pathway to publication, rather than acting as a gatekeeper against it. Review is rigorous, but its object is to establish whether good work can be brought to a publishable standard and to help the author get it there, rather than to seek reasons to exclude. This intent is built into the process described below, which requires the agreement of two independent reviewers before any submission can be rejected.
Type of review
Every research article published by RAP undergoes independent, double-blind peer review: the identities of the authors and the reviewers are withheld from one another throughout the process.
What we assess
Submissions are assessed against three criteria: the rigour of the work, its originality, and the clarity with which it is reported. RAP does not assess submissions against perceived importance, fashion, or fit with editorial preference. It is not for the journal, its editors or referees to determine the value of the research. That is a decision solely for the readership and scholarly community.
The scholarly community is awash with tales of highly influential, even Nobel-prize winning, papers that were rejected multiple times for reasons unrelated to rigour, originality, or clarity. RAP actively seeks to minimise this possibility. We would rather publish work that is correct but risks being uninteresting, than reject work that is correct but risks being politically unfavourable.
The review process
Every submission is sent for independent peer review. From there, the process follows one of two paths.
Toward publication. A submission is reviewed by at least one independent expert reviewer. Where the work is judged sound, the author is given a single opportunity to address the reviewer’s comments; one structured round of revision, rather than an open-ended series of rounds, after which the handling editor makes the decision.
Toward rejection. No submission is rejected on the assessment of a single reviewer. This removes the potential for politically-motivated adverse reviews to block otherwise legitimate research. If the first reviewer recommends rejection, the submission is referred to a second independent reviewer. If the second reviewer also recommends rejection, the handling editor confirms the decision. If, instead, the second reviewer identifies a viable pathway to publication that the first did not, the submission is taken forward on that basis. In consequence, no article is rejected without two independent reviewers having recommended rejection.
The editorial decision
The handling editor is responsible for the decision on each submission, made in light of the review(s). The editor is accountable for the decision and for the integrity of the process.
Confidentiality and conduct
Submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential. Reviewers assess submissions objectively and, on their merits, declare any competing interest that could bear on their assessment, and do not use or disclose the content of a submission for any purpose other than the review.
Use of automated tools in review
RAP’s use of AI and automated tools in support of the review and editorial process, always under the oversight of, and never overriding, the responsible human reviewer or editor, is described in its Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence.
Contact: editor@runnymedeacademicpress.com
Runnymede Academic Press is the trading name of Futures House Limited, registered in England and Wales (company number 15842304). Registered office: Ground floor, Centenary House, Peninsula Park, Rydon Lane, Exeter, EX2 7XE.