Peer review information

Instructions to ensure blind peer review

  • Remove author names: Remove author names and affiliations from the manuscript and all accompanying files, including the title page and page headers. 
  • Replace self-citation references and footnotes: If the authors cite their own works, replace the references with [redacted] or [blinded] or [Author X].
  • Anonymize the project: If you are easily recognizable based on the project, you can anonymize it. 
  • Remove identifying information from file properties: Use the document inspector to search for hidden properties and remove any identifying information and also see details removing identifiers from file properties.
  • Avoid revealing wording: Avoid revealing wording such as “my study” or “we/the authors have previously demonstrated”. 
  • Anonymize contributors: If your manuscript is pre-registered, anonymize the contributors.
  • Remove any identifying information from figures or images, including logos, location details, or patient identifiers.

Anonymising file properties

  • MacIntosh Word

    1. Under the File menu select "Properties"

    2. Under the Summary tab remove all of the identifying information from all of the fields.

    3. Save the File.

  • Microsoft Word Document
    1. Instructions are for Windows Office 365.  
      NOTE: It is not possible to restore the data that the Document Inspector removes, so save a copy of your original document before anonymizing.

    2. Open the commented document that you want to make anonymous. 

    3. Save a copy under a different file name.  

    4. Open the File menu on the far left of the menu ribbon.

    5. In the screen that opens, Select Info on the left-hand side bar  

    6. Click on the Check for Issues box; choose “Inspect Document" from the drop-down menu.

    7. In the Document Inspector window:  

      1. Uncheck the Comments, Revisions, Version, and Annotations box. In this case, your purpose is to keep your comments in the document.  

      2. Check the "Document Properties and Personal Information" box.  

      3. All other boxes should be unchecked.

    8. Click the Inspect button at the bottom of the window, then when the next screen appears, click on Remove All.

    9. Finally, save the file – you may want to save it as a copy with “-anon” or “anonymized” added. It may take a few seconds for the changes to appear.

      1. Comments and Changes in the file will be attributed to “Author”.

      2. No names will be identified in the “Related People” area of the Info section of the File page. 

  • PDF files
    1. With PDFs, the authors' names should also be removed from Document Properties found under File on Adobe Acrobat's main menu.

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.

Guidelines for reviewers

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

Peer review policy per article type

Section or article type Public Submissions Peer Reviewed Indexed
Research Article ✓ ✓ ✓
Special Feature ✓ ✓ ✓
Reflections from the Field ✓ ✓ ✓

Article types

  • Research articles are full-length manuscripts that present an original contribution to the field of deliberative democracy. The length ranges from 6,000 to 8,000 words including abstract, keywords, footnotes and references. Additional tables and appendix may be published in the online version of the article and are excluded from the word count.  
  • Reflections from the Field are shorter peer-reviewed articles (2,000-4,000 words) providing insights into participatory and deliberative practice that are often not captured in traditional academic publications. To be considered for public, submissions must fulfil one or more of the following criteria:
    • Chart the latest developments and practices within the field of participatory and deliberative democracy;
    • Offer a reflective account and practice-informed insights on novel methods/cases; ethical dilemmas that researchers, practitioners and participants might navigate in the field; other neglected themes that can illuminate the "behind the scenes" work of participatory and deliberative democracy;
    • Have authorship or co-authorship by or with practitioners, policymakers, activists or civil society actors.
  • Special Features are solicited, and may include commentaries interviews, conversations and roundtables.

Please note that the Journal is no longer considering Special Issues or Book Reviews for publication.

An annual Special Feature is our new format that will replace Special Issues. There will be one thematic call for Special Feature per year.