When an issue of our Journal is published and it includes a contribution from one of the editorial board, I feel compelled to reiterate the process of acceptance of papers for the Journal. This provides a two-fold service; the first is to confirm that I do not offer myself a right of passage, as editor of the Journal; and the second is to encourage those who may receive a somewhat negative referee's report, which still allows resubmission but requires revision, to hang in there and address the issues raised and to resubmit. My paper, which appears in this issue of the Journal, was anonymously refereed and was accepted, in its initial format, but the referee raised some minor issues This is standard fare for the passage of most articles submitted, even those found to be acceptable. Being conflicted, as the editor-in-chief, despite the paper being accepted for publication, recognising that the referee raised trivial concerns, I was not prepared to proceed on that basis. I insisted on a further independent review, with the referee being blinded to the earlier acceptance, to ensure the paper truly passed muster. I was pleased that this further evaluation was also favourable but the reviewer also suggested very minor alterations. These were adequately addressed and the paper appears in this issue of the Journal.