Peer Review Guide
Journal of Mormon Polygamy
Guide for Peer Review
Contributing to the Journal of Mormon Polygamy as a peer reviewer not only enhances the quality of research in this important field but also offers valuable benefits for your own career development. These include:
- Understanding the editorial process: As a peer reviewer, you'll gain valuable experience by collaborating with the editorial team, giving you an inside look at how publication decisions are made and the types of revisions that are commonly suggested.
- Staying current with emerging research: Reviewing gives you early access to cutting-edge scholarship on Mormon polygamy, often months before it is published, keeping you informed of new trends and findings in the field. Peer reviewing can connect you with other scholars, editors, and professionals in the field, expanding your academic and professional network.
- Strengthening and showcasing your expertise: Reviewing articles sharpens your ability to critically evaluate research methodologies, arguments, and conclusions, strengthening your own scholarly work. Your review experience can serve as evidence of your expertise when applying for funding or academic positions, whether informally or through formal recognition on reviewer platforms.
- Contributing to an important scholarly conversation: As a reviewer, you have the opportunity to help shape the direction of research on Mormon polygamy by offering constructive feedback that ensures high standards of scholarship and helping to ensure that diverse perspectives are represented.
If you’re interested in reviewing journal articles for the Journal of Mormon Polygamy, please contact Cheryl Bruno at [email protected] or Michelle Stone at [email protected]
Getting Started:
The Journal of Mormon Polygamy utilizes double-blind peer review, where neither the writer nor the reviewer knows the identity of the other. The peer review process is confidential. Reviewers should not share or discuss the article’s content with anyone outside of the review process. Respect the intellectual property of the author by keeping all details of the article private.
When you receive an invitation to review, please respond quickly to let the journal know if you are able to complete the review within the requested deadline (generally, this is four weeks). Please consider if you have the appropriate expertise to review the article, and if you have any conflicts of interest that might keep you from giving an unbiased assessment. If you are not able to review, it is much appreciated if you suggest alternate reviewers for the article.
Reviewing Guidelines:
As a peer reviewer for the Journal of Mormon Polygamy, your role is essential in shaping high-quality scholarship. Your feedback should aim to support the author in improving their article. Offer thoughtful, actionable suggestions that help refine and strengthen their work. Provide a mix of positive feedback and areas for improvement. Highlighting the article’s strengths will encourage the author and frame your critical feedback in a more collaborative spirit. If you see any ethical issues in the article, such as plagiarism, falsified data, or conflicts of interest that haven’t been disclosed, alert the journal editor privately.
Below is a comprehensive guide to help you through the peer review process:
1. Evaluating the Article’s Contribution
- Relevance and Fit: Is this contribution clearly articulated, and does it align well with the journal’s mission and themes?
- Impact on the Field: Does the article offer original insights or significant contributions to the study of Mormon polygamy?
- Importance: How meaningful is the article’s impact on current scholarship in this area? Will it advance the dialogue in the field?
2. Assessing the Scholarly Rigor
- Soundness of Argument: Does the author make a reasonable interpretation of the data and sources? Are the arguments or methodologies used well-reasoned and appropriately applied?
- Evidence and Support: Has the author provided enough credible evidence to substantiate their claims? Are any critical sources or references missing?
- Citations and Sources: Are the references accurate, up-to-date, and relevant? Would additional citations enhance the article's scholarly base?
- Accuracy of Information: Are all data, quotes, and references factually correct and properly attributed?
3. Reviewing Structure and Clarity
- Coherence and Flow: Is the article logically structured and easy to follow? Does the organization support the author’s argument?
- Introduction and Conclusion: Does the author clearly introduce the article’s aims and objectives? Are the conclusions effectively summarized?
- Language and Readability: Is the writing clear, concise, and accessible? Are there any significant language issues that need correction?
- Abstract: Does the abstract accurately reflect the article’s key arguments and findings?
4. Writing Your Review
When crafting your review, begin with an overall assessment, highlighting the article’s strengths and weaknesses. Then move into a more detailed analysis, offering specific examples and suggestions for improvement. Ask questions or suggest further lines of inquiry the author might explore, especially if their argument could be expanded or clarified. Remember, your goal is to help the author enhance their work—not simply to critique it.
5. Recommendation Options
Your review will guide the editorial decision, and you will be asked to recommend one of the following. This will be sent to the editor and not to the author/s:
- Accept without Revisions: Reserved for exceptional submissions that require no changes.
- Minor Revisions: Recommend minor improvements, such as polishing the language, refining the argument, or adding key references. Be specific about what changes are necessary for clarity or completeness.
- Major Revisions: If significant reworking is needed, such as restructuring the article, strengthening the methodology, or adding crucial evidence, provide clear, detailed suggestions. Consider the time and effort required for these revisions and whether the article can ultimately meet the journal’s standards.
- Reject: If the article is fundamentally flawed in methodology, argument, or relevance, explain why it is not suitable for publication. Offer constructive feedback so the author can improve future work.
By offering thoughtful, objective, and clear feedback, your review will help maintain the high standards of the Journal of Mormon Polygamy and contribute to meaningful academic discourse.
