diff --git a/submissions/templates/submissions/refereeing_guidelines.html b/submissions/templates/submissions/refereeing_guidelines.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e7f67d37f6a8a87717106a2c16c556623d56aa31
--- /dev/null
+++ b/submissions/templates/submissions/refereeing_guidelines.html
@@ -0,0 +1,326 @@
+{% extends 'scipost/base.html' %}
+
+{% load staticfiles %}
+
+{% block pagetitle %}: refereeing guide{% endblock pagetitle %}
+
+
+{% block breadcrumb %}
+ <div class="container-outside header">
+ <div class="container">
+ <nav class="breadcrumb hidden-sm-down">
+ <span class="breadcrumb-item">Refereeing guide</span>
+ </nav>
+ </div>
+ </div>
+{% endblock %}
+
+{% block content %}
+
+
+<h1 class="highlight-x">Refereeing at SciPost</h1>
+<h2 class="highlight-x">A guide for referees and authors</h2>
+<p>
+ The following is a general guide to refereeing at SciPost.
+ Slightly informal in style, it is meant to introduce you to how our peer review system works.
+ It does not replace
+ our Journals' <a href="{% url 'journals:journals_terms_and_conditions' %}">Terms and Conditions</a>
+ (which extend the general <a href="{% url 'scipost:terms_and_conditions' %}">SciPost Terms and Conditions</a>), which remain in force as official rules.
+</p>
+<p>
+ Referees should in particular be familiar with
+ our <a href="{% url 'journals:journals_terms_and_conditions' %}#referee_code_of_conduct">referee code of conduct</a>.
+ Authors should in particular be familiar with
+ our <a href="{% url 'journals:journals_terms_and_conditions' %}#author_obligations">author obligations</a>.
+</p>
+
+
+<h2 class="highlight">For referees</h2>
+
+<div class="row">
+ <div class="col-6">
+
+ <h3>Have you been invited to write a Report?</h3>
+ <p>Here are some basic things we trust you will do:</p>
+ <ul>
+ <li>
+ <h4>Please promptly accept or decline the invitation</h4>
+ <p>
+ To make your life as easy as possible, the email invitation
+ you will have received contains simple one-click
+ actions to accept/decline the task. As a basic but effective
+ mark of respect to our authors, Fellows and editorial team
+ (and to help us minimize delays in processing submissions),
+ please respond promptly to any invitation you receive.
+ </p>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <h4>Comply with our conflict-of-interest rules</h4>
+ <p>
+ Conflict of interest is a serious matter, and you should ensure that you do not
+ transgress our rules. You should not referee if you have:
+ <ul>
+ <li>published joint work with one or more of the authors in the last 3 years</li>
+ <li>an ongoing collaboration with one or more of the authors</li>
+ <li>a personal relationship with one (or more!) of the authors</li>
+ <li>a hierarchical connection with one or more of the authors</li>
+ <li>doubts or feel conflicted due to a close link between the work
+ refereed and your own work.</li>
+ </ul>
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Note</strong>: in some fields, it is customary for extremely large numbers of
+ authors to publish jointly. In such cases, the co-authorship disqualifier can be relaxed,
+ and conflict of interest be assessed primarily on the basis of active collaboration.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ If you feel that a conflict of interest exists, or if you have doubts, you should email our
+ <a href="mailto:edadmin@scipost.org">editorial administration</a>, explaining the matter.
+ </p>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <h4>Please deliver your Report in time</h4>
+ <p>
+ Following acceptance, you should provide a report within the allocated refereeing
+ period. It is preferable to deliver a shorter report within the expected time
+ than no report at all.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ You can start writing your Report at any time and,
+ if other duties suddenly require your attention,
+ conveniently save it as a draft for later completion.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ If you had accepted to send a Report, but subsequently decide not to proceed,
+ please send a communication to the Submission's Editor-in-charge
+ (you can do this from your <a href="{% url 'scipost:personal_page' %}">personal page</a>,
+ under the refereeing tab).
+ </p>
+ </ul>
+
+ <h3>What do we ask you in our Report form?</h3>
+ <p>
+ Our Report form is quite intuitive and straightforward, and can be easily filled
+ if you have already read and thought about the paper.
+ </p>
+ <p>To be clear, when filling in a Report form, you will be asked for:</p>
+ <ul>
+ <li>your assessment of your qualification for refereeing this submission (form: choice field, from expert to ... not qualified!)</li>
+ <li>your evaluation of the strengths of the submission (form: text area)</li>
+ <li>your evaluation of its weaknesses (form: text area)</li>
+ <li>your actual report in textual free-style form (form: text area)</li>
+ <li>the list of changes you request to the authors</li>
+ <li>your assessment of the validity, significance, originality and clarity of the submission (form: choice field, from top to poor)</li>
+ <li>your assessment of the formatting and grammatical level of the submission (form: choice field, from perfect to mediocre)</li>
+ <li>your recommendation, which can be one of:
+ <ul>
+ <li>Publish (top 10% of papers in this Journal)</li>
+ <li>Publish (top 50%)</li>
+ <li>Publish (meets criteria of this Journal)</li>
+ <li>Ask for minor revision</li>
+ <li>Ask for major revision</li>
+ <li>Reject</li>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <p>
+ You can make use of $\LaTeX$ mathematical formulas in the text areas, thanks to MathJax.
+ Note that only basic elements are available
+ (\$...\$ for inline equations, \ [ ... \ ] for on-line equations).
+ </p>
+ </ul>
+
+ <h3>Before you write your Report</h3>
+ <ul>
+ <li>
+ <h4>read the paper!</h4>
+ <p>
+ This might sound obvious, but don't skim on this.
+ Take the time, and give the paper a chance. You might actually learn something
+ new and interesting.
+ </p>
+ </li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <h3>Writing your Report</h3>
+ <ul>
+ <li>
+ <h4>identify the strong points of the paper</h4>
+ <p>
+ Start with the positive.
+ What did the authors (try to) do? What did they achieve?
+ Even if you end up being very critical of the work, your criticisms will
+ have much more credibility and convincing power if you make it clear that you have
+ given the authors a chance.
+ </p>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <h4>try to be constructive and put your fingers on points that could be improved</h4>
+ <p>
+ Nothing is perfect, and even for the better aspects of a paper, you might be
+ able to suggest ways in which things could be improved.
+ See "things to focus on while writing your report" for some ideas.
+ </p>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <h4>if any, note the weaknesses of the paper</h4>
+ <p>
+ Science thrives on constructive criticism. Your expertise is needed to
+ ensure that the papers which are published at SciPost achieve the highest-quality
+ end result achievable. If you have objections to the methods, results or conlusions
+ in the paper, it is your task as an expert to underline them.
+ </p>
+ </li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <h3>The characteristics of a good Report</h3>
+ <p>There are no fixed rules or expectations, but a good report is typically:</p>
+ <ul>
+ <li>constructive and useful to the authors</li>
+ <li>fair to the authors and respectful of their work</li>
+ <li>clear</li>
+ <li>succinct</li>
+ <li>organized and systematic</li>
+ <li>properly referenced (if further literature is mentioned)</li>
+ </ul>
+
+ </div>
+
+ <div class="col-6">
+
+ <h3>FAQ</h3>
+ <ul>
+ <li>
+ <h4>Can you include me in your list of referees?</h4>
+ <p>
+ Any qualified academic is welcome to perform refereeing work for us.
+ There are two ways to become a referee:
+ <ul>
+ <li>by being explicitly invited by the Editor-in-charge of a Submission</li>
+ <li>by writing a Contributed Report</li>
+ </ul>
+ <br/>
+ If you are a known expert in your area, the first will inevitably happen at some point.
+ If you are a Registered Contributor at SciPost, you can contribute a Report on
+ any Submission currently undergoing refereeing.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ Should you wish to be permanently removed from our list of referees,
+ please email our <a href="mailto:edadmin@scipost.org">editorial administration</a>.
+ </p>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <h4>Why should I do it?</h4>
+ <p>
+ Simply because it's an essential aspect of your academic job,
+ and because it's ultimately your duty as a scientist. As an author, you benefit from others'
+ work as referees; academic collegiality should thus incite you to return the favour.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ That said, there is a substantial benefit to perfoming refereeing work at SciPost.
+ Your Report will be made citable (through giving it a DOI). You can then even
+ quantify your refereeing activity in your CV if you so wish. View this as a mark
+ of respect for the valuable work which you will put into it.
+ </p>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <h4>Will you protect my anonymity as a referee?</h4>
+ <p>
+ Yes.
+ It is very important to avoid a simple confusion here:
+ you can certainly elect to be (and forever remain) anonymous
+ when you referee. Our <a href="{% url 'scipost:FAQ' %}#pwr">peer-witnessed refereeing</a>
+ method only means that we insist on making the Report
+ <em>contents</em> publicly available, not the name of the person who wrote them.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ That said, we give you the possibility (and would like to explicitly encourage you)
+ to sign your
+ Reports. It is entirely possible to be very critical of a paper, while revealing your
+ identity (after all, we academics do this all the time during conferences). You might also find
+ that your critical comments enjoy an even better reception from the authors if you
+ do let them know who is making them. If you are unsure, by all means do remain anonymous.
+ You can always, at any point in the future, change the setting of any given Report
+ to non-anonymous (from your <a href="{% url 'scipost:personal_page' %}">personal page</a>,
+ under the refereeing tab).
+ </p>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <h4>Will you pay me to write a Report?</h4>
+ <p>
+ No. SciPost is not a money-making enterprise (neither for us, nor for you).
+ </p>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <h4>How long should it take me?</h4>
+ <p>
+ Say reading the paper takes one unit of time.
+ To do a proper job, you can then easily spend one more unit thinking about it,
+ perhaps one or two more trying to rederive some results and consulting further literature,
+ and then another writing your Report.
+ So to be proud of your work, 4-5 time units is a good indication
+ (but don't worry, nobody is clocking you).
+ </p>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <h4>What happens if I'm late?</h4>
+ <p>
+ We will unleash a plague of locusts onto your household.
+ No seriously: we understand how busy the life of an academic can be, and how
+ difficult it can be to schedule everything and meet all deadlines.
+ Simply note that the Editor-in-charge of a Submission can proceed
+ with formulating a recommendation
+ once the refereeing deadline has passed. If your invited Report is delivered late, it will
+ still be accepted and published, but might not weigh in on the publication decision
+ by the College (depending on the circumstances), and might thus miss its chance of
+ providing the authors with useful input.
+ </p>
+ </li>
+ </ul>
+ </div>
+
+
+</div>
+
+
+<h2 class="highlight">For authors</h2>
+
+<div class="row">
+ <div class="col-6">
+ <h3>How to react to a Report?</h3>
+ <ul>
+ <li>
+ <h4>Be open to criticism, and read the report carefully</h4>
+ <p>
+ Remember that referees have a somewhat unrewarding task.
+ They do this job for your benefit, not their own.
+ You can rightfully expect them to treat your work with respect.
+ In return, you should give proper consideration to their comments and criticisms,
+ and do your best to address any of the points raised.
+ </p>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <h4>Submit an Author Reply</h4>
+ <p>
+ You can submit an Author Reply to a Report pertaining to a Submission for which you
+ are a recognized author (you can claim any such authorship from your
+ <a href="{% url 'scipost:personal_page' %}">personal page</a>).
+ Writing an Author Reply is recommended if there are specific points of a Report which you want to
+ respond to. You can mention changes you plan to implement in your manuscript which result
+ from this Report (though your list of changes can also wait for your resubmission letter).
+ </p>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <h4>Upon resubmission, link back to the Reports</h4>
+ <p>
+ Hopefully the Reports will have helped you improve your manuscript.
+ Before resubmitting, prepare a list of changes (which you can then paste in the appropriate
+ field of the resubmission form) in order for referees and editors to clearly understand
+ what has (or hasn't) changed in your paper.
+ </p>
+ </li>
+ </ul>
+
+ </div>
+</div>
+
+{% endblock content %}
diff --git a/submissions/urls.py b/submissions/urls.py
index e008858ce532e308c43239d7d2c2f66f939d92c4..1bc1334823ad42f1331593cbe67cc6caf5d99115 100644
--- a/submissions/urls.py
+++ b/submissions/urls.py
@@ -19,6 +19,9 @@ urlpatterns = [
url(r'^author_guidelines$',
TemplateView.as_view(template_name='submissions/author_guidelines.html'),
name='author_guidelines'),
+ url(r'^refereeing_guidelines$',
+ TemplateView.as_view(template_name='submissions/refereeing_guidelines.html'),
+ name='refereeing_guidelines'),
url(r'^{regex}/$'.format(regex=SUBMISSIONS_NO_VN_REGEX), views.submission_detail_wo_vn_nr,
name='submission_wo_vn_nr'),
url(r'^{regex}/$'.format(regex=SUBMISSIONS_COMPLETE_REGEX),