Registration and peer review process

​​Registration and peer review process

Chapters are submitted on the website – email submissions are not accepted.

Each chapter is reviewed in a double-blind peer review process. The double-blind review process ensure that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous during the peer review process. Authors do not know who conducted their reviews, reviewers do not know whose chapter they are reviewing.

Peer reviewers are pre-registered on the website. At the beginning of the review period, peer reviewers are requested to confirm that they are available to review the chapters.

Peer reviewers complete their review over the form which involves both multiple-choice selects and free-form comment assessments.

Peer reviewers should be prepared to provide some detail, particularly for negative evaluations. Reviewers can provide feedback for the authors, and also private feedback for the editors. Peer reviewers provide a critical assessment of the research, and may recommend improvements. Although the author may choose not to take this advice, it is highly recommended that the author address any issues, explaining why their research process or conclusions are correct.

Authors are notified by email if their chapter has been accepted.

Notes for Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers should be aware that the MINIMUM time required to review a chapter is at least 2 hours and significantly more time is common in order to do them justice. Peer reviewers should be prepared to provide some detail, particularly for negative evaluations.
If you are invited to review a full chapter, please consider:

    1. Do you have time to do the review by the deadline?
    2. Is the chapter within your area of expertise?
    3. Are you sure you will complete the review by the deadline?

Peer review of full chapters is NOT about correcting grammar, spelling, poorly written references. It is about reviewing the academic validity and relevance of the chapter! As a reviewer, if you find yourself correcting spelling, you are probably becoming bogged down in the detail, when you are meant to be assessing the “big picture”!

Full chapters are evaluated against the following criteria:

    1. The title, abstract and keywords must accurately reflect the chapter’s contents.
    2. The research must be relevant to the monograph theme/s.
    3. The research methodology must be sound.
    4. The chapter must be well-structured and clearly written.
    5. References must be relevant and accurate.

The editorial committee makes decisions where there is a significant discrepancy between reviewer evaluations. Authors may be asked to revise their full chapter where it does not correspond to their abstract, where layout or references are formatted incorrectly, to correct grammar or improve on the chapter quality.

Where the editorial committee requires a revision, the chapter will not be published without the revision or an approved explanation of the issue.
​
Any identified plagiarism will automatically disqualify a chapter.