Peer Review Process and Policy

The Journal of Practice Theory adopts a double-anonymised peer review policy (see ‘A Standard Terminology for Peer Review’):

Identity transparency – double anonymised;

Reviewer interacts with – Editor

Review information published – none.

Below is a summary of the peer review process:

  • Editorial assessment of the proposed contribution. If the contribution does not align with the aims and scope of the journal or if the quality is not up to the journal standards (see Aims and Scope), the contribution is rejected. Otherwise, it proceeds to the next step.
  • The contribution is sent out to two peer reviewers. (How many of the reviewers are external experts or part of the editorial board depends on the type of contribution.)
  • When the reviewers’ comments are returned, the Editors consider the level of development required. The outcome at this stage can include one of the following: reject; major revisions; minor revisions; acceptance without revisions.
  • Unless the contribution is rejected, the author is provided with the reviewers’ comments and with an editorial summary inviting them to proceed with the revision of their work.
  • The resubmission is evaluated by the Editors, who can send the paper out to one or more of the original reviewers, asking for an additional round of revisions. At this point, the paper is returned to the authors with an editorial commentary and can be either rejected, accepted with minor revisions or accepted without revisions.

Who Conducts the Peer Review?

At a minimum, anything published in the Journal of Practice Theory receives two independent reviews. Exceptions are listed below and will always be described as part of the publication.

Articles – 2 independent peer reviewers (2 x external expert);

Essay – 2 independent peer reviewers (1 x member of editorial board, 1 x external expert);

Feature Column and Editorials – reviewed the relevant/an appropriate editor;

Alternative and Innovative Forms – we will adjust the review process to suit the particular form and always describe this as part of the publication.

Special Issues

Special issue articles have the same editorial oversight as regular papers, and follow the same external peer review process, as above.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the content of the entire journal, ensures that guest editors’ credentials are checked and approved, and oversees the production of the special issue by the guest editor/s.

Papers submitted to a special issue by the guest editor/s must also follow the same independent review process and make up no more than 25% of that issue's total.

Other Information

On submission, authors can recommend reviewers, as part of the last section on information for the editors.

All material intended to be published should be submitted for review. Source material, (for example interview material or raw data) is not reviewed, but should be made accessible to reviewers from the stage of submission (see Author Guidelines and Submissions).

See also the journal’s related policies on Ethics and Editorial Procedures for various information, including on authorship; complaints; misconduct; conflicts of interest; data sharing; ethical oversight; intellectual property, and corrections and retractions.

All contributions are published with submission, acceptance, and publication dates.

To recognise the work of peer reviewers and their contributions to the journal and to connect the network of practice theory scholars, with their consent and at appropriate intervals, we publish and maintain a list of academics who have reviewed for the journal.