Public Humanities upholds a rigorous and fair peer review policy.
The peer review process for Themed Issues is handled by expert Guest Editor(s), though overall responsibility for the peer review process lies with the Editors-in-Chief. All papers - solicited and unsolicited submissions - are assigned to the handling Guest Editor, who will assess each paper for relevance and quality before sending it out for peer review. All papers submitted to Themed Issues undergo double-anonymous peer review by at least two independent experts. The Guest Editor then recommends a final decision to the handling Editor-in-Chief. Although Guest Editors make desk reject decisions autonomously, the handling Editor-in-Chief is responsible for all other final decisions and for overseeing the peer review process of every Themed Issue. Papers written by the Editors-in-Chief will be handled by a member of the Editorial Collective.
The peer review process for Of the Moment articles is handled by the Editors-in-Chief. Each paper undergoes double-anonymous peer review from at least one member of the Editorial Collective and one member of the Advisory Board or an external reviewer.
Although all Public Humanities contributions must be anonymized, they may be personal in nature, and authors should note that in some cases the reviewer may be able to determine the identity of the author from the content alone.
The review process will seek to offer feedback on both content (quality of ideas) and style (accessibility of writing).
Articles submitted for publication in Public Humanities will receive one of the following decisions:
Rejection. Either before peer review (otherwise known as a ‘desk rejection,’ typically because the article is outside of the journal’s scope) or after peer review (if reviewers and editors do not find the article suitable for Public Humanities).
Revision. The submission shows promise, but substantive changes to ideas explored in the piece are required before it can proceed further. Feedback may relate to improvements needed to strengthen the evidence, analysis, argument, implications, or research in the piece.
Style Edit. The submission shows promise, but stylistic changes to the writing in the piece are required before it can proceed further. Feedback may relate to structure, language, clarity, or a need to better balance scholarly rigor and accessible writing to fit the broad readership that Public Humanities serves.
Accept. Congratulations, the article will publish in Public Humanities!
Appeals
To appeal an Editorial Decision, contact [email protected] and specify the reason for your appeal. Your appeal will be reviewed by the Editorial Collective and the original handling Editor-in-Chief of your article will not be involved. The final decision regarding your appeal will rest with the Editorial Collective.
Appeals will only be considered if they refer to a specific manuscript and must be based on evidence that either: 1) an Editor-in-Chief, Guest Editor or Reviewer made a significant factual error/there was a major misunderstanding of a manuscript; or 2) the integrity of the editorial decision making process was compromised.
Appeals should situate the ground for complaint within the appeals framework as outlined above. The Editors-in-Chief will then appoint a member of the Editorial Collective closest in expertise to the topic of the disputed work to consider the appeal, with the final decision made by the Editorial Collective. All appeals are handled on a case-by-case basis and the decision of the Editorial Collective is final.
If your appeal is granted, your manuscript will undergo further assessment by an independent reviewer and a new final decision will be made. This decision will be final and no further decision will be made on your manuscript. Granting of appeals does not guarantee final acceptance into the journal.