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 firstname.lastname@example.org
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 for Vol 4 Issue 1 (Spring 2018):
|October 2017||Submissions received & reviewed by Editorial Collective|
|November 2017||Submissions undergo first peer review|
|December 2017||Author revisions|
|January 2018||Resubmissions received to 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)|