HUP ensures that all publications undergo a rigorous peer-review process. We aim to make the review process as efficient as possible whilst maintaining a high quality of reviewer feedback.
Book proposals are reviewed by at least one external expert, and the review period is expected to take around six to eight weeks. With full manuscripts, there are at least two external experts and the review period can vary between ten to fourteen weeks, depending on reviewers’ individual schedules.
HUP’s book review process is double blind. Each referee receives an anonymous manuscript for review, and the identities of the referees are not revealed to the author(s). Exceptions may be made by mutual prior agreement.
For journals, HUP also allows different options of peer review, such as open review and triple-blind review – at the discretion of the journal’s editorial team.
The duty of the referee is to provide a statement on the manuscript’s suitability for publication by choosing from the following options: (1) the manuscript is acceptable as it stands; (2) the manuscript is acceptable with minor revisions; (3) the manuscript is acceptable with major revisions; (4) the manuscript is unacceptable and should be rejected. HUP forwards the referee statements to the author(s) of the manuscript along with possible recommendations by the academic board.
HUP has the right to use a peer-review label in its publications. The label is granted by the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies (TSV), and it indicates that the peer review of articles and books has been performed in line with the quality and ethical criteria imposed by the international academic community.
HUP’s editorial team and academic board evaluate all book proposals that are submitted to the press. The editorial team and academic board assess if the proposal can be accepted for peer review, whether revisions to the proposal are required prior review process, or whether the proposal will be rejected. If accepted for peer review, the proposal is sent to at least one independent external expert for a profound evaluation. The review process is double blind; however, exceptions may be made by mutual prior agreement. The academic board makes the final publication decision, whether negative or positive, based on the peer-review report(s) of the proposal. If the decision is positive, HUP will sign a preliminary publishing contract with the author(s)/editor(s).
The book review process is double blind unless otherwise agreed. All book manuscripts are peer reviewed by at least two external reviewers. The reviewers, who are experts within the subject area, are asked to comment on the strength of the methodology and the analysis of data; whether conclusions are supported by sufficient evidence/data; whether the content is well structured; and if the submission includes up-to-date information on the subject and adequate referencing. After review feedback is received, the editorial team will collate the feedback and ask the author(s)/editor(s) for relevant revisions. If revisions are requested, then these must be completed before the manuscript is accepted for publication. If major revisions have been requested, the re-submitted manuscript may be sent out for subsequent rounds of review. The academic board makes the final publication decisions based on the peer-review reports.
Book series’ proposals along with list of upcoming titles and abstracts are first evaluated by the editorial team and the academic board. If the proposal is accepted for peer review, the proposal and supporting material are sent to two external reviewers. The review process is single blind in order to enable the reviewer to assess the capacity and capability of the Editor(s)-in-Chief and editorial team, and the series’ publisher’s background.
The series’ Editor(s) and editorial team are responsible for arranging and managing peer-review processes of the series’ individual publications. The series’ editorial boards are responsible for the final publishing decisions. HUP’s editorial team supports the processes, if necessary, and the HUP academic board is kept informed about the processes.
AHEAD: Advanced Studies in the Humanities and Social Sciences is a peer-reviewed book series, following the peer review guidelines of the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies. The peer review process is organized by the Series Editor in collaboration with the Editorial Board.
The review process has two stages: submitted book proposals as well as the final manuscripts undergo peer review. If the Editorial Board finds a submitted book proposal promising, the proposal is sent to peer review. In the first stage of the review process, the book proposal is evaluated by one external referee. This will take approximately two months upon the receipt of the proposal. If the referee’s report is positive, the Series Editor will invite a full manuscript from the author/guest editor(s). In the second stage of the review process, the entire manuscript will be assessed by two external referees. This will take up to three months upon the receipt of the full manuscript. The Series Editor and the Editorial Board make the final publishing decision based on the referees’ recommendations.
The peer review is double-anonymous in both stages of the process: the identities of the author(s)/editor(s) and the referees will not be disclosed to one another. Contributors are kindly asked to make sure that their proposals are fully anonymized.
HUP editorial team and academic board evaluate the proposals and determine if the journal fits the current criteria for journals. If the proposal is accepted for peer review, it will be sent to two external experts. The review process is single blind, and the identity of the journal’s editorial team and editor(s)-in-chief are revealed to the reviewers. The academic board makes the final publication decision based on the reviewers’ recommendations.
The editorial board of each journal establishes the peer-review processes depending on the most suitable review model for the journal. The journals’ review policies are clearly displayed on each journals’ websites. All HUP’s journals adhere to the COPE guidelines for best practice.
Please address the following issues in your review report:
If the manuscript is an edited volume, we kindly ask you to provide detailed comments on each chapter separately.
Please note that any possible conflicts of interest should be taken into account in the review process. If a consulted expert has a conflict of interest related to the content or author(s) of a manuscript, or is in other ways involved with the matter, please contact HUP.