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 contingenthorizons@gmail.com

Outline of the 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.

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

Contingent Horizons Manuscript Review Sheet (.doc)

Comments from the peer reviews will be shared with the authors. As a student journal, we request that reviewers provide comments that are constructive, encouraging, and supportive. Following anthropologist Joseph Dumit’s notes on reading, the Editorial Collective encourages a generous and constructive reading of manuscripts (in lieu of a critical reading).

Completed manuscript reviews are to be emailed to the Editorial Collective at contingenthorizons@gmail.com

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 typically be sent one submission to review.

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.

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.

Author Revisions

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 2018/2019

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)

 

Advertisements