Peer review information

Review Process

All submissions are initially assessed by our Editorial Assistant, who will check if submissions meet the formal and technical requirements of the journal (e.g. word count and anonymisation). Submissions are then assigned an Editor, who decides whether or not the article is suitable for peer review.

Submissions considered suitable for peer review are assigned to at least two subject experts, who assess the article for clarity, validity, and sound methodology.

Authors may be invited to recommend or ask for the exclusion of specific individuals from the peer review process. The journal does not guarantee to use these suggestions. All reviewers must be independent from the submission and will be asked to declare all competing interests.

The journal operates a double-blind peer review process, meaning that authors and reviewers remain anonymous for the review process, except in some circumstances such as commentaries, research notes, or ethnographic studies where the author’s identity is central to the narrative.

The review period is expected to take up to forty five days although this can vary depending on reviewer availability. Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal.

Based on the reviewer reports the editor will make a recommendation for rejection, minor or major revisions, or acceptance. Overall editorial responsibility rests with the journal’s Editors who are supported by an expert, international Editorial Board.

Members of the editorial team/board are permitted to submit their own papers to the journal. In cases where an author is associated with the journal, they will be removed from all editorial tasks for that paper and another member of the team will be assigned responsibility for overseeing peer review. A competing interest must also be declared within the submission and any resulting publication.

Reviewer Guidelines

The journal publishes a limited number of articles a year, and so reviewers are encouraged to be selective in endorsing the publication of articles based on the criteria we outline below:

• Fit: Does the article fit the aims and scope of the journal?
  Content: Does the manuscript demonstrate theoretical, methodological and empirical rigour? Does it thoughtfully engage critical debates in deliberative democracy and/or its subfields?
• Structure: Is the article structured in a way that addresses its research questions and/or provide evidence for arguments made?
• Style: The journal is committed to serve as knowledge broker between scholars and practitioners of citizen engagement. Is the manuscript written in a clear, concise and engaging way that speaks to the global community of deliberative democracy scholars and practitioners?
• Impact: Does the article explain the implications of its findings and arguments to deliberative democracy theory and/or practice?
   

Based on these questions, reviewers will be asked to make a recommendation:

Accept with no revisions
Accept with minor revisions
Major revisions
Reject