Transnational Press London follows a rigorous peer review policy for all publications (books, journal articles, book chapters, reports) and other publishing projects.
Transnational Press London follows a blind peer review policy in selecting the books for publication. The book proposals are reviewed by two external reviewers and the manuscript is reviewed by the editors. Book Series editors both screen the initial proposals and the final manuscripts.
The journals published by Transnational Press London are subject to double-blind peer review, except The Commentaries and The Agonist, which follow the editorial review and blind review. Submitted manuscripts are reviewed by the Journal editor or associate editors or area editors. Papers may be desk-rejected at this stage. If the manuscript is considered to be of standard quality, it is then sent to at least two external reviewers. Once all reviews are received, the editors make a decision whether to publish, request revisions, or reject the manuscript.
Projects undertaken within and/or with the support of Transnational Press London are reviewed by members of the Advisory Board assigned by cognate areas and the outcomes including the publications and reports are approved by the chair of the board.
We require all our authors, reviewers and editors to be familiar with our Publishing Ethics policies.
We value peer review which is a process where peer experts evaluate the quality of others’ work. The purpose is to ensure the work is rigorous, coherent, uses past research and there is a clear added value to the knowledge in a particular field.
It also helps the editors to select higher quality articles for publication. Peer review also ensures the integrity of the publishing process. Perhaps one of the greatest added value of the peer review process is that it gives authors access to expert opinions in the field as well as useful critical insight into the methods and models used (or can be used) in the study.
- Editorial review – means the work is reviewed by one or more editors who are experts in the field and the identity of the reviewing editor(s) is not disclosed to the author(s).
- Blind peer review – means the identity of the reviewer is not disclosed to the author(s).
- Double-blind peer review – means neither the author(s) nor the reviewers know the identity of each other.
- Open peer review – both reviewer’s and author(s) names are disclosed. In this type of review practice, often journals are expected to publish the reviewers’ names alongside the article.
Full Review Guideline
Transnational Press London aim to provide platforms for research, scholarship, and debates in the respective fields the journals or books or conferences cover. Our journals and books cover a great range of social sciences and humanities subjects. They target both specialist audiences and the wider public interested in these debates and research. Articles are directed to scholars, researchers, students, policymakers, practitioners and professionals who work and/or are interested in cognate fields.
Our reviewers elected to serve because of their knowledge and expertise in respective subject areas. Reviewers can be selected from the editorial boards, author databases, and external databases depending on needs for expertise.
Every submitted article in our journals is reviewed by at least two experts in the subject area. Unfortunately, some articles are desk rejected prior to peer review for various reasons. This could be the case if the submission falls outside the scope of a journal; or poor quality of presentation; or major issues identified by editorial teams.
About 100,000 individuals and institutions in more than 150 countries are current and potential subscribers to Transnational Press London journals.
Reviewer Credits and Reviewer Certificates
Transnational Press London is a member of ReviewerCredits. Completing the peer-review you are invited to by any of our journals, will qualify you to the third-party certification provided by this organization and assign you credits that may be used on the Reviewer Credits online store. Register now for a free Reviewer Credits account and get ready to start. Find out more here.
What does a reviewer/referee for Transnational Press London journals do?
As a member of the Editorial Review Board or as an ad hoc reviewer invited to review, you will be asked to anonymously review manuscripts submitted to our journals. Editorial Board members typically review five to ten manuscripts per year, and ad hoc reviewers are invited to review as needed. Each year our journals receive over 1000 manuscripts. Depending on the journal, these submitted works range between 2,000 words and 10,000 words.
Reviews are completed electronically using our manuscript management system. When there are difficulties faced in the system, reviews can also be e-mailed to us in the body of the e-mail or as an attached file to the e-mail. Please try and use the online review system links in the email request for review you have received from us. Unfortunately, sometimes, these emails go into spam folders. We therefore kindly ask our reviewers to check their spam folders and add our email addresses to their safe sender/contact lists.
Our journals allow ONE week to respond to the review request and THREE to FOUR weeks to read and review the manuscript. Please note that your adherence to the return deadline is very important in our review process. (If you are on the Editorial Board of the relevant journal, we would appreciate your letting us know when you will be away for an extended period of time so that we do not direct manuscripts to you during that interval. We would appreciate your keeping us informed of your current address by keeping your profiles up to date on the manuscript management system.)
How can a reviewer make an optimum contribution to a writer’s work?
There are several features of a manuscript that should be addressed in an effective review. As editors and contributors to journals, we appreciate a reviewer’s beginning a review with a brief summary of the article. Following that, we would suggest structuring the commentary to reflect the four categories used in rating manuscript quality: content, rationale or reasoning, style, and audience appropriateness. Several questions related to each of these categories are provided below to help reviewers develop their commentaries:
Freshness and Scope of Content
- Is the content fresh? Are readers likely to perceive the piece as a contribution to their concerns about the subject area? Will readers view the work as current?
- Does the paper articulate an innovative strategy, program, or perspective? Or does the paper provide a fresh view or synthesis of existing knowledge?
Rationale and/or Reasoning
- Is the purpose of the article manifest? Does the content of the manuscript clearly align with the purpose? Does the paper contain material not essential to its purpose?
- Has the author, as appropriate, provided a sufficient review of the literature to provide a base for the work undertaken?
- Are stated conclusions, results, or findings well-documented and sustainable with credible evidence?
- Do conclusions clearly rest on data presented and analyzed?
- Does the article contain any unresolved ambiguities or conflicting information?
- Are conclusions generalizable to other contexts?
Style
- Is the manuscript’s organization effective?
- Is the writing lucid, coherent, and well focused?
- Where appropriate, are the procedures, data, method of analysis, and findings clearly presented?
- Would a reader find the material accessible?
- Do a sense of the author’s standpoint and perspective emerge?
Audience Appropriateness
- Would an audience of specialists respond with enthusiasm to the content of the manuscript?
- Are readers likely to view information gained from the manuscript as information that would add significantly to their knowledge and effectiveness?
Answers to these or similar questions are likely to provide authors with the detailed commentary they may need to revise productively. They will also provide us with important information about your transactions with the text so that we can draft supportive letters to our authors when we recommend revision and resubmission.
Ranking Manuscripts
- Reviewers are asked to indicate their judgment of a paper’s content in terms of its being fresh and current.
- We ask them to determine the degree to which major points are evident, supported, and substantiated.
- We ask that they evaluate the clarity of the author’s writing and the degree to which it is unpretentious.
- We ask that reviewers indicate how appropriate the content of an article is for our readership, which consists primarily of specialists, researchers, service providers and government professionals.
After you have read, reflected upon, and written about the manuscript, we ask you to provide us with an overall recommendation practically reflecting one of the four following options:
- Accept, with minor editorial changes
- Accept with revisions (if promising)
- Revise and resubmit (subject to peer review again)
- Reject, not publishable
- Unsuitable, resubmit elsewhere
Your detailed comments will be forwarded to the author of the article and will be the only communication between a reviewer and an author.
Peer reviews are crucial in our editorial processes ensuring rigour and upholding ethical principles. Therefore we thank all our reviewers for their continuous support. Your contributions of time and thoughtfulness are very much appreciated, as well as your detailed feedback.
On behalf of the Editorial Teams at Transnational Press London
Email: admin@tplondon.com