Thank you for your interest in reviewing for INTER-. It’s through your contribution that we are able to keep student-led, non-hierarchical publishing alive. The following are some notes and clarifying points for prospective reviewers:
- A “Master” Word document for each article is stored securely throughout the editing and reviewing stage, and shared with the external reviewer once they have accepted the Invitation to Review.
- Each draft is reviewed internally by one member of the PG Editorial board, and one external reviewer. Internal reviewers assess the piece as normal, but utilise their familiarity with INTER-‘s submission requirements and ethos to ensure the work conforms to them.
- External reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise, and whilst they are invited to highlight writing issues, are not expected to do any copy-editing.
- If you are receiving a draft to review, the editorial board has determined that the manuscript is sufficiently related to “Global Thought” as a discipline. We do not ask you, as a reviewer, to have familiarity or expertise in the school of Global Thought.
- Global Thought has a wide and expansive scope of interest and is intrinsically interdisciplinary in its practice. We expect that papers will attempt novel combinations of thinkers and disciplines across Global North/South divides, class borders, and across intellectual history.
- We ask you as reviewers to deploy the expertise and familiarity to the subject matter/thinkers in the manuscript to the best of your ability. If you feel that you don’t have sufficient expertise to review the manuscript, then please notify us as soon as possible so we can find a replacement reviewer.
- We give reviewers a month from the receipt of the draft to return it to us with their decision. If more time is required, please notify us at the earliest opportunity.
- Final proofs are shared with authors prior to publication.
What We Are Looking For:
The INTER- board encourages reviewers to consider the following questions when evaluating a submission:
- Does this submission meet the criteria of interdisciplinarity? I.e., does it put different disciplines in conversation with each other toward a synthesis of understanding?
- Does it provide fresh insights or contributions to the debates/traditions it engages with?
- Does it add meaningfully to global conversations on the topic in question?
- Has an attempt been made to engage with non-Eurocentric positions and ideas related to the topic?
- Does the author make their main argument successfully?
Our Ethos:
INTER- accepts submissions from students, PGR’s, early-career academics and longer-term researchers. Part of the purpose of INTER- is to embrace a non-hierarchical and egalitarian publishing environment, encouraging student publication and participation. The work of students and early-career academics is often exciting, novel and dynamic, and we feel, woefully under-published and attended to, usually confined to archives and unread by anyone except supervisors and parents. We believe student and postgraduate papers should be read alongside the work of established academics to represent multiple perspectives and positions in a “commons” of knowledge-sharing. Publishing has a big role to play in decolonising and de-hierarchising knowledge production and distribution.
So, please keep in mind that you may receive student or early-career academic submissions. The kind of feedback environment INTER- would like to propagate is fair and aligned with the shared project of a freely accessible and widely distributed intellectual commons. Please consider appropriate and constructive language tailored to this environment.
The criterion for reviewers is as follows:
| Not recommended for publication | The manuscript contains fatal inaccuracies, strong ideological bias, discrimination or inflammatory rhetoric, or is suspected of plagiarism, AI-generated in part or fully, manipulation or tampering with data. |
| Major revisions needed | The manuscript is not unpublishable but requires major revision prior to being recommended. This could include adding supplementary data, attending to missed or misconstrued argumentation, rewriting passages, or extending/tightening the argumentative structure. |
| Minor revisions needed | The manuscript is almost ready for publication. Minor revisions may highlight where slightly more clarity or development is needed in the argument, grammatical inconsistencies and inaccuracies, incomplete citations or data, rewriting short passages/sentences. The reviewer may ask for an explanation as to certain omissions in the argument before being satisfied with its publishable merit. |
| Recommended for publication | The manuscript is ready for publication and no revisions are necessary. |
We ask that you provide constructive feedback directed to the author to accompany your decision. These comments, like the review decision, are entirely anonymous.
The review may comprise both major and minor revisions. In your feedback, please highlight where in the manuscript major revisions are necessary, and where minor revisions are necessary, to assist the author in making the amendments quickly. Please also point out what was meritable in the work and highlight where, as this is equally helpful (and fair) for authors.
Optionally, you may include confidential explanatory/descriptive comments for the editorial board to accompany your decision. These notes for the editorial board might more directly explain your rationale or thinking behind your decision and are helpful for us.
The feedback form is provided here: