Peer Review

Peer review is an important part of the academic publishing process. All articles that appear in Contingent Horizons undergo peer review.

Peer reviewers are undergraduate and graduate students in anthropology or related disciplines who volunteer their time to provide this valuable service to the journal. Peer reviews are expected to be generous, constructive, and completed in a timely fashion.

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

Guidelines for Peer Reviewers 

Download our Peer Reviewer guidelines as a PDF file by clicking on the following link:

Peer Review Guidelines (pdf)

Reviewers are to use the Contingent Horizons Manuscript Review Sheet to guide their peer review. It is available for download as a word document:

Manuscript Review Sheet (doc)

Anonymity & Confidentiality

The review process is blind, meaning that the Editorial Collective does not reveal the identity of authors and reviewers to each other. The authors are to remain anonymous to reviewers and reviewers are to remain anonymous to authors.

Manuscripts received by peer reviewers are to be treated as confidential. Reviewers are not to share or discuss manuscripts under review with anyone other than the Editorial Collective.

Timeline and workload

Reviewers will be provided with a deadline for reviewing the manuscript they receive. If the reviewer is unable to complete the review in the requested timeline they are to notify the Editorial Collective as soon as possible.

Reviewers will be sent 1-2 articles max to review. If the reviewer is only able to review 1 manuscript, or if they are able to review more than 2 manuscripts, please inform the Editorial Collective.

Declining to review

Reviewers are requested to notify the Editorial Collective if they receive a manuscript where they may have a potential conflict of interest (e.g. they can identify the author based on the manuscript and have a conflict of interest due to a past or present relationship with said author), if they receive a manuscript they do not feel qualified or comfortable reviewing, or if for any other reason they are no longer able to act as a peer reviewer.

Plagiarism & Ethics

If the manuscript being reviewed resembles another author’s published or unpublished work, or if the reviewer suspects plagiarism of any kind, please report these concerns to the Editorial Collective. Contingent Horizons only accepts original work.

If the reviewers are concerned with possible violations of ethical standards in the work they are reviewing, or if they have any concerns whatsoever about the ethics of the work, they are to report these concerns to the Editorial Collective. Contingent Horizons is guided by the American Anthropological Association (AAA) Statement on Ethics.

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 one or two peer reviewers. Reviewers will have approximately one month to review manuscripts.

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

Revise & Resubmit

If authors are requested to revise and resubmit their manuscript, they will have approximately one month to work on revisions and draft a point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments.

Second Peer Review

Once the resubmission is received by the Editorial Collective, the reviewer will receive both the revised manuscript and response to reviewers’ comments. Reviewers will then be asked a second time if the revised manuscript should be accepted (without modification or with suggested revisions), revised and resubmitted (with minor or substantive changes), or rejected. Reviewers will receive approximately 2-3 weeks for their second review.

Authors may be asked to work directly with the Editorial Collective if major revisions are recommended in the second review. Only in rare cases will authors be requested to revise and resubmit their manuscript for a third review.

Final Revisions & Copy-Editing

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

Peer Review Timeline 2017/2018:

October 2017 Submissions received & reviewed by Editorial Collective
November 2017 Submissions undergo first peer review
December 2017 Author revisions
January 2018 Resubmissions reviewed by Editorial Collective
February 2018 Resubmissions undergo second peer review
March 2018 Final author revisions
April 2018 Final editorial revisions, copy-editing, and formatting
May 2018 Publication (online and in print)