Peer Review

Peer review is an important part of the academic publishing process. All articles published in Contingent Horizons undergo peer review. Peer reviews are expected to be generous, constructive, and completed in a timely fashion.

Peer reviewers are undergraduate and graduate students in anthropology or related disciplines who volunteer their time to provide this valuable service to the journal.

The list of reviewers is updated annually. If you are interested in acting as a peer reviewer for Contingent Horizons, please email the Editorial Collective at

Outline of Peer Review Process

Editorial Collective Pre-Review

Before manuscripts are sent to review, the Editorial Collective first reviews all submissions to ensure adherence to the current Call for Papers on the Contingent Horizons website, the Contingent Horizons Submission Guidelines, and the Contingent Horizons Style Guidelines. The Editorial Collective may reject manuscripts based on the initial pre-review. Not all manuscripts will be sent to peer review.

First Peer Review

If a manuscript is selected by the Editorial Collective for review, it will be sent to selected peer reviewers. Reviewers will have approximately one month to review manuscripts. Please see our Guidelines for Peer Reviewers for instructions on how to complete your review.

Reviewers will be asked to recommend whether the manuscript should be accepted (without modification or with revisions), revised and resubmitted (with substantive changes), or rejected.

Reviewer comments included in the Manuscript Review Sheet will be anonymized and sent to authors.


If authors are requested to revise their manuscript, they will have approximately one month to work on revisions and draft a point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments. Please see our Guidelines for Responding to Reviewer Feedback to assist authors in preparing responses to reviewers.

Second Peer Review

Once the revisions are received by the Editorial Collective, both the revised manuscript and response to reviewers’ comments will be sent to the reviewers for a second review. Reviewers will receive approximately 2 weeks for their second review. The purpose of the second review is to assess whether authors adequately addressed the reviewers concerns raised in the first review.

Authors may be asked to work directly with the Editorial Collective if the reviewers raise any major concerns in the second review.

Final Revisions & Copy-Editing

After the peer review process is complete, authors will work with the Editorial Collective to make any final revisions and copy-edit their manuscript for publication.

Peer Review Timeline:

October Submissions received & reviewed by Editorial Collective
November Submissions undergo first peer review
December Author revisions
January Resubmissions received to Editorial Collective
February Resubmissions undergo second peer review
March Final author revisions
April Final editorial revisions, copy-editing, and formatting
May Publication (online and in print)