Peer review procedure
The following information can also be found at https://www.gold.ac.uk/goldsmiths-press/about/
All Goldsmiths Press books go through the same rigorous editorial and peer review processes, whether published open access or not.
Goldsmiths Press is committed to a constructive and rigorous peer review process. Rather than replacing anonymous with open peer review or individual (one-to-one) with community-based (peer-to-peer) review, Goldsmiths Press invites reviewers to note the importance of a generous and generative critique, designed to help the author or artist improve the quality of their work. An ethical review process is, we believe, different from an open/closed one and is based on reciprocal respect and responsibility. Our contributors are encouraged to attend carefully to reviewer’s comments and to recognize the gift of time (very often, free labour) and of intellectual and creative engagement involved in reviewing. Conversely, reviewers are encouraged to recognize what our contributors are trying to do and to evaluate how well they are doing it without imposing their own agenda or, in effect, asking for an entirely different project! The tone of a review might matter more than whether or not it is anonymous. Individual reviewers may decide for themselves if they wish to sign their report and/or engage directly with the contributor.
- Your proposal will initially be assessed by the Goldsmiths Press editorial team (and series editors, where relevant). If it fits with our publishing programme and we decide to proceed with your proposal, we will send it out for peer review. We aim to keep authors updated throughout the process. • The review process is double blind, although we give reviewers the option of conducting open peer review if they wish. This is in recognition of the critiques of double blind peer review and to facilitate dialogue between author and reviewer where it might be useful. Proposals and sample material are sent to a minimum of two external peer reviewers. • Reviewers are selected for their scholarly expertise and experience in the proposal’s field. Suggestions for reviewers may be made by authors in order to help streamline the process, but we will send the proposal to at least one other reviewer as well. • It is expected that peer reviewers will declare any potential conflicts of interest to Goldsmiths Press prior to accepting a review invitation. • Reviewers are asked to provide feedback on: coverage (what is distinctive about the proposal, what the proposed book would add to the field, suggestions for improving scope or structure); readership/reception/market potential (including courses on which the book might be read) and overall recommendation. • If two reviewer reports differ considerably, or are uncertain in their recommendations, a third review will usually be sought.
- Completed reviews are sent to the author/editor for a response which is then considered alongside the proposal and the peer reviews by the Goldsmiths Press editorial team, series editors where appropriate and the editorial board. A decision is made on whether to recommend the proposal for acceptance, to request revisions to the proposal (which may necessitate a further round of peer reviews of the revised material), or to decline the proposal for publication. The final decision rests with the editorial board.
- Membership of the editorial board consists of academic staff from a range of departments at Goldsmiths and other academic institutions in the UK and abroad. Series editors are invited to become members of the editorial board. Authors are offered a contract for their book once the proposal has been accepted by the board.
Final manuscripts are sent out for a final round of peer review. Reviewers are invited to comment on: whether the project represents a high-quality, original contribution to the field; whether the relevant modes of communication (writing, image making and so on) are of an acceptable standard; if there are any problems relating to accuracy and inclusiveness of citation, presentation or referencing systems; whether the book is ready for publication and if the reviewer has any suggestions for improvement.
Review feedback is communicated to the author and any final revisions to the manuscript requested and implemented according to an agreed timeline. Following Goldsmiths Press approval, the manuscript is prepared for production by the editorial team.
Proposal and final manuscript reviewers are offered a copy of the relevant book as a token of our appreciation.