Double Blind Peer Review
The peer review process is at the core of reputable scholarly publishing and is the driving force behind all IGI Global books and journals. IGI Global reviewers maintain the highest ethical standards of scientific research and all manuscripts follow a double-blind peer review process that is fully conducted within the IGI Global eEditorial Discovery® manuscript submission system.
The reviews are then easily accessible to the IGI Global editorial staff which ensures that should accusations of questionable peer review arise, IGI Global will be able to support its published authors and editors in dismissing these claims and ensuring the continued success of the corresponding publications. View IGI Global’s full Ethics and Malpractice Statement .
As a publisher of scholarly articles and chapters, IGI Global realizes that fraud erodes the public trust and deeply affects the outcomes of all research results and findings reported within scholarly journals and academic reference books. As such, IGI Global mandates that a double-blind peer review process must be undertaken on each of its publications, including each chapter submission.
IGI Global follows a double-blind peer review process, which means that the authors of the chapter and the reviewers of the chapter remain anonymous to each other. It is at the discretion of the reviewer if they wish to reveal themselves to the authors after any and all revisions are made and a formal decision has been determined for the chapter by the editor.
Peer Review Process for Edited Books
The double-blind peer review process is entirely managed by the editor(s) of an edited book. Responsibilities of the editor(s) include:
• The editor(s) of a book is/are the only person responsible for the initial review of chapter proposals that are submitted to the book and their subsequent acceptance or rejection.
• The editor(s) of a book is/are the only person responsible for the initial review of a full chapter submission to verify that it meets the coverage of the book and also to ensure that authors’ names and affiliations are removed from the paper prior to assigning it for review.
• All editors of books must utilize the eEditorial Discovery® manuscript submission system to assign reviewers to manuscripts. Likewise, all reviews must be submitted by the reviewers through the system. This allows a paper trail in the event a question arises surrounding the review process.
For edited books, a double-blind peer review process must be conducted on any manuscript that is not desk rejected. Editors may choose from a variety of methods for conducting the peer review process:
- Editors may use the chapter submission authors to peer review each other’s work.
- Editors may appoint an Editorial Advisory Board to peer review the chapters.
- Editors may utilize a mixture of both methods above, using chapter submission authors to provide the first layer of the peer review process, while keeping the Editorial Advisory Board members as back-up reviewers, as tiebreakers, or as a second level of review.
Editors should not participate in the double-blind peer review process as reviewers as this compromises the peer review process due to editors knowing the identity of the authors.
Ideally, no less than two to three (2-3) quality peer reviews should be obtained for each manuscript. Should two (2) reviews be received and have conflicting recommendations, a third (3rd) review should be obtained. If necessary, revised manuscripts may be returned to the initial reviewers for re-evaluation. The editors may require more than one revision of a manuscript, and additional reviewers may also be invited to review the manuscript at any time. The entire review process can typically take anywhere from twelve (12) to sixteen (16) weeks.
Editors should follow the below steps:
Step 1: Once a chapter is deemed suitable by the editor(s) to enter the double-blind peer review process, it will be anonymized (if not already) and assigned to at least three (3) to five (5) reviewers via the eEditorial Discovery® manuscript submission system.
Reviewers are given evaluation criteria and asked to provide anonymous comments to the author and may also provide confidential feedback to the editor(s).
Step 2: Once all reviewer evaluations have been received, the editor(s) may choose to send the reviews to an Editorial Advisory Board member or other trusted expert for their evaluation of the manuscript as a second layer of review. Once all requested reviews are received, the editor(s) will determine whether the manuscript is accepted, requires revision, or is rejected.
Step 3: The editor(s) will make the reviews and comments available to the author(s) of the manuscript following their editorial decision on the manuscript. If the manuscript is rejected, the process ends and the editor(s) may recommend another outlet if appropriate. If the manuscript is accepted without any revisions required, then the author will be provided with the formatting guidelines for final submission. If the manuscript requires substantial revisions, then the author will be expected to follow the reviewer’s commentary and also the formatting guidelines to complete the revision of their article.
When requesting a revision from the authors, the due dates should not exceed one (1) month from the time that the revision request was sent (and should certainly not exceed the final manuscript deadline). Should the author not get the revision in on time, it is important that the editors reach out to them to ensure that they get their revisions in or to at least confirm whether or not they are still interested in having their work considered for publication. Some authors will require an extension to get their revisions in. It is at the editors discretion whether or not the editor wants to give them an extended deadline. Revisions should always be supplemented with revision notes that address the reviewers’ commentary.
Step 4: Once the revised manuscript is received (if applicable) it may be sent back to an original or new reviewer for evaluation, and then the reviewers new decision will be sent to the editor(s). This process may repeat itself several times before a final decision is reached. If the manuscript is rejected, then the process ends and the editor(s) may recommend another outlet if appropriate.
Note: The return of a manuscript to the author(s) for revision does not guarantee acceptance of the manuscript for publication.
Only the editors may make the final decision for the chapter as to whether it will be accepted for publication in the book. The editor(s) are requested to complete their editorial decisions in no more than two (2) weeks.
All manuscript submission status updates, acceptance, and rejection notifications must be handled by the book’s editor. Should an author come to the development editor with a request for a status update, they will forward the author on to the editor(s) to respond. It is important that editors do not feel pressure from the authors to bypass or hurry any level of the peer review process. Editors should not be accepting any form of remuneration or bribes for pushing the work through the process.
IGI Global’s Intellectual Property & Contracts Department can provide authors with a formal acceptance letter that should suffice until the accepted work is published online.
Regarding submissions that have not been completed, it is the responsibility of the editors to contact the authors and ensure that they are still willing to publish within the book. Letting them know the phases that they are still missing (e.g. documents, figures, etc.) allows for a more responsive author. Should the editor(s) not receive a response from the authors in two (2) weeks, they may exercise their right as the editor to remove the listing from the system.
View IGI Global’s full peer review process webpage and flow chart here.
Peer Review Process for Authored Books
The double-blind peer review process is entirely managed by the publisher (IGI Global) for an authored book. The steps include:
Step 1: Authors are responsible for submitting the final version of their manuscript including a Table of Contents, Preface, and the full, completed version of each chapter. Manuscripts submitted that are missing elements or are works-in-progress will not be entered into the peer review process.
Step 2: IGI Global is responsible for identifying and inviting reviewers for the book. Reviewers are required to sign an agreement before the review can be undertaken. IGI Global supplies reviewers with the review form and a blinded version of the final manuscript.
Step 3: Reviewers are responsible for providing the final review form to IGI Global upon a designated deadline. Reviewers receive an honorarium upon completion of a high-quality and thorough review.
Step 4: IGI Global provides the author with the review and all comments/feedback.
Step 5: Upon reviewing the evaluations for the book, it is at IGI Global’s discretion, based on the reviewer recommendations, as to whether the book will continue with publication or be rejected and the author(s) released from the contract. Should the book proceed with publication, authors are expected to make revisions based on reviewer feedback. Authors will return a revised final version of the book to IGI Global, who will inspect it to ensure that proper revisions have been made. Revised manuscripts may be placed under the peer review process once again or returned to the original reviewer if necessary. IGI Global makes the final decision on whether the manuscript will be accepted for publication.