*The meeting notes for the Pyrrhic Press Publishing Editorial Board are not publicly available for review. However, they may be furnished upon specific request and necessity, subject to approval. Requests for access will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of the discussions held by the editorial board.

Role of the Editorial Board in the Peer Review Process

The editorial board of Pyrrhic Press plays a pivotal role in maintaining the integrity and quality of the peer review process. Their responsibilities include:

1. Initial Manuscript Screening:

   • The editorial board assists in the preliminary evaluation of manuscripts to determine whether they fit within the journal's scope and adhere to submission guidelines. This screening helps ensure that only relevant and high-quality manuscripts proceed to the peer review stage.

2. Reviewer Assignment:

   • The Editor-in-Chief, along with relevant members of the editorial board, is responsible for selecting suitable peer reviewers based on the manuscript's subject matter and the reviewers’ expertise.
   • The editorial board ensures that the selected reviewers are qualified, unbiased, and free from conflicts of interest, maintaining the integrity of the review process.

3. Oversight of the Review Process:

   • The editorial board monitors the progress of the peer review process, ensuring that reviews are completed within the agreed timeline.
   • They intervene in cases of delays or conflicts, ensuring that the process is fair and transparent.

4. Assessment of Reviewer Reports:

   • After receiving reviewer reports, the editorial board evaluates the feedback, ensuring it is balanced, constructive, and aligns with Pyrrhic Press’s standards for academic quality.
   • They may request additional reviews if feedback is conflicting or unclear.

5. Final Decision-Making:

   • The editorial board makes the final decision on whether a manuscript is accepted, requires revisions, or is rejected. This decision is based on reviewer recommendations, the manuscript’s quality, and its potential contribution to the field.
   • In cases of conflicting reviews, the editorial board may consult additional experts or make an independent judgment based on their expertise.

6. Ethical Standards Enforcement:

   • The editorial board ensures that all parties involved in the peer review process adhere to ethical standards, including confidentiality, conflict of interest disclosure, and fair treatment of all submissions.
   • They also ensure that reviewers’ identities remain anonymous to maintain the integrity of the double-blind peer review process.

7. Feedback to Reviewers:

   • The editorial board may provide feedback to reviewers regarding the quality and helpfulness of their reviews, fostering a culture of constructive peer evaluation.