Peer Review Process
Every submission is read properly, by people, and every author gets written feedback — whether or not we publish the piece.
The steps
- Submission. You send your work through the submission form as a Word document with your details.
- First check. An editor confirms it is in scope, is the right length, and is referenced. Anything obviously incomplete goes straight back with a note, so you can fix it and resubmit.
- Review. At least two board members read it independently against the criteria below. Neither sees the other's comments first.
- Decision and feedback. You receive one of three outcomes — accept, revise, or decline — along with the reviewers' written comments.
- Revision. Most accepted pieces are asked to revise something. You will usually have two to three weeks.
- Editing and publication. We copy-edit for clarity and house style, send you the edited version to approve, and publish it in the annual issue.
What reviewers look for
- A real question. Something specific enough to answer.
- Evidence handled honestly. Claims supported by sources, with the strength of those sources reflected in how firmly you put things.
- Limitations acknowledged. Saying what your sources cannot tell you is a strength, not a weakness.
- Clarity. A reader in the year below should be able to follow it.
- Referencing. Complete and consistent, in APA or MLA.
How long it takes
Most authors get a first response within three weeks of submitting. Editing and publication follow the forum in November.
If you disagree with a decision
Write to us. Explain what you think was misread and why. A board member who was not involved in the original decision will look again.