Peer review

Research articles, short articles, theoretical papers, artefact papers, data papers, reproduction reports, methods notes and field and workshop reports go through double-anonymized peer review. Reviews, commentaries, interviews and letters to the editor are assessed by the editors.

1. Initial assessment. The section editor checks scope, completeness, the iThenticate similarity report and, for artefact papers and reproduction reports, the product package.
2. Peer review. Manuscripts that pass are sent to at least two independent reviewers who do not share an institution with the authors. Neither side knows the other's identity.
3. Product review. For artefact papers and reproduction reports, a product reviewer opens, runs or prints the product (see the Product package standard).
4. Decision. The section editor recommends and an editor-in-chief decides: accept, minor revision, major revision or reject. When reviewers disagree, a third reviewer is invited or the editor decides with reasons.

The journal aims to send a first decision within eight weeks of submission.

Manuscripts by the editors, board members or reviewers of CODE are handled by another editor; the author has no access to their review. Such papers make up no more than a quarter of any issue.

Authors may appeal a decision once, with reasons, to the editors-in-chief; an editor not involved in the first decision reviews the appeal.