The philosophy behind the peer-review process in our journal could be characterized as open, progressive, and as one that strives towards developing both the journal and the writers through mentoring and working together to uphold coherent scientific standards. We consider peer-review as a process for development, through which the transcripts, and the writers, can be evolved into the best versions of themselves. Naturally, the other main focus of the process is to ensure the the transcript stands up to the rigorous scientific standards, and that the ideas and thoughts presented in it are as valid as possible.
For peer-reviewing articles and essays, we favour utilizing both an open review as well as a chart-based review. We take into consideration how important it is that the writer is provided with a detailed description of the quality of their transcript in order to further develop the questions, themes, criteria, and the originality of the study presented in the transcript. The purpose of the peer-review is to ensure the scientific quality and rigor of the methodological articles and essays. However, it is as important to provide commentary and statements to support the writer in achieving the desired scientific criteria. Formatting and other such external aspects of the transcript are, in the eyes of the peer-reviewer, secondary to the scientific quality, analytical depth and methodological usability presented within the text. In this sense, the scientific criteria, clear and understandable citation and cross-referencing, analytical originality and understanding and rethinking old theoretical frameworks hold the utmost valued position in our journal.
The peer-review process is anonymous, and the acting chief editor is the mediator between the writer and the reviewer. There are always two reviewers, and should their reviews differ drastically, the chief editor may, at his or her own discretion, add a third reviewer to the process. However, adding a third reviewer will add an extra six to eight weeks to the total review time, including the selection of the extra reviewer and the four weeks for the review.
After the reviewer has accepted the request to review an article or an essay, they will receive an anonymized version of the transcript, and they are given approximately four weeks to complete the review. We kindly ask the reviewers to send their finished reviews to the editorial staff via email. The review should contain a general review on the transcript, no shorter than half a page. Additionally, the reviewer is requested to fill in a review chart to provide the writer a more thorough and understandable checklist on how to improve their transcript even further. The review may contain suggestions on literature or other such notions as long as the reviewer is able to give such advice without compromising their own anonymity. The peer-review process is designed to be as articulate and as analytical as possible, given the allotted timeframe and other constraints, and the aim is to further develop the writers as well as their texts. Thus, it should be evident to the writer which aspects of the transcript are discussed in the review.
Upon receiving the initial review, the writer is given approximately four weeks to develop their transcript according the reviews and feedback. Should another round of reviews be necessary, it is conducted with the general review only, without the review chart. If the third review is needed the review chart in addition to review is needed. In special situations, such as when the reviewers approve and recommend the transcript be published with no corrections or further development, strong argumenta and justifications are expected. Furthermore, sound and clear justification is required when a transcript is wholly disqualified.
The reviewers are always informed on whether the transcript is to be published or not. Additionally, on more arduous review processes the reviewers may be presented with an anonymized version of the other reviews.
Writing the General Review and Filling the Review Chart
As the ultimate goal for the reviews is to ensure the quality of the transcript through sound critique, as well as developing the writer, the general review plays an essential role in the process. The reviewer should always aim to offer understandable justifications and reasoning for all statements that pertain to the quality of the text.
Although the review chart already provides aid in evaluating following aspects, we recommend the peer-reviewer takes note of the following list:
1. The Novelty Value: Does the work bring forth any novel concepts or ideas, any rethinking of old ideas? Does is reconceptualise any contemporary or old works? Does the work provide any new scientific remarks?
2. The Depth and Quality of the Analysis: As the subject is methodology, analytical depth in and of itself may raise the work's scientific value. However, clarity and quality of the analysis are desired for methodological usability.
3. Material and Reasoning: What is the material and the reasoning on which the work is built upon? Are there any missing aspects or issues with clarity? Here, reasoning could be considered a method in and of itself, as there is no distinct method for developing methodology.
4. Confining the Context: Is the context of the work confined with sufficient clarity, and have the criteria for the subject been given consideration?
5. Suggestions for Development: What kind of development, additions, or omissions the article would require to undergo in order to be publishable?
6. Limits in Methodological Discussion: How are the statements and propositions on methodological theory justified and rationalized? Do the arguments hold up to scrutiny?
7. Publishing: Does the transcript contain any parts that make it unpublishable?
8. Is the general idea in the work cohesive?
9. The reviewer should also note in their general review if any aspect or subject is beyond their expertise, as this information will greatly avail the review process.