Transnational Press London follows a rigorous peer review policy for all publications and projects.

Transnational Press London follows 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.

All journals published by Transnational Press London are subject to double blind peer 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. 

Publishing Ethics and Malpractice Statement

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 the 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.

  • 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.