Peer-review policy
How the lodge reads what is offered to it — honestly, fraternally, and with the standards of evidence the Transactions are meant to uphold.
Review is editorial and fraternal
The lodge's review is conducted by brethren for the good of the record and the author. It is rigorous but not adversarial: the aim is to help a sound paper reach its best form, and to keep work that the evidence does not support out of the lodge's published proceedings.
We describe this plainly rather than borrowing the apparatus of an academic journal. The lodge does not claim journal-equivalent peer review; it claims an honest, sourced, editor-and-reviewer reading by people who know the field.
What reviewers weigh
A reading attends, above all, to four things:
- EvidenceAre the claims supported by sources a reader can check?
- ClarityIs the argument legible, and are inference and evidence kept distinct?
- RelevanceDoes the work belong to the lodge's field and add to the record?
- Source qualityAre the sources sound, and used fairly and in context?
Who reads, and how
An editor triages each submission and assigns it to one or more reviewers, who report on the papers assigned to them. A reviewer's report carries a recommendation — accept, accept with minor revisions, major revisions, or decline — and a narrative explaining it. The editor weighs the reports and reaches the decision; an officer schedules an accepted paper to a communication.
Whether reviews are conducted blind — with the author's identity withheld from reviewers — is a matter the lodge is still settling; the system supports blinded review, and blinding by default is the lodge's proposed practice, pending its ruling.
Revision and outcomes
Most accepted papers are improved through at least one round of revision. After review, a submission reaches one of these outcomes:
- AcceptThe paper is taken for the Transactions as it stands.
- Accept with revisionsTaken, subject to specified changes the editor confirms.
- Revise and resubmitNot yet accepted; the author is invited to rework and return it.
- DeclineNot taken — with reasons, offered in good faith.
Timelines and conflicts of interest
The lodge aims to give authors a decision in good time and to surface progress in the portal; a specific service standard is proposed but not yet ratified.
Reviewers and editors recuse themselves where they have a stake in the outcome — a close association with the author, or their own work under discussion. The lodge is small, and candour about such ties is expected as a matter of course.
Ready to contribute?
The submission guidelines explain how to prepare and offer a paper for this review.