Medieval Rus′

Maintained by: David J. Birnbaum (djbpitt@gmail.com) Last modified: 2020-07-07T21:18:14+0000

Referee guidelines

General

Referee reports should indicate whether the work is suitable for publication in the journal or not. Possible responses may include:

Accept as submitted, perhaps with minor corrections of obvious careless errors.
Reject as unsuitable for the journal, without offering an opinion about the quality of the work. Some otherwise general Slavic studies journals may, for example, exclude Slavic linguistics or Slavic language pedagogy from their coverage (this is the case with Slavic review). Journals with that sort of policy might reject a submission in those areas with a recommendation that the author submit it to a specialized journal. For the purpose of this course, assume that the articles authored by your classmates are appropriate in terms of subject matter for the hypothetical journal to which they have been submitted.
Reject as not of sufficient quality, with no evidence that the author will be able to improve the article (otherwise than by writing a completely different article). Rejections must explain why the article is unpublishable, and editors try to frame this type of rejection politely, while making it clear that they are not inviting a revision. If a submission is truly unpublishable, and there is no realistic likelihood that it can be salvaged it’s important to say so.
The most common response is revise and resubmit. In this case it is important to be clear about what would be needed to bring the submission up to publishable quality, and authors should be able to assume that if they meet those requirements, their articles would be considered acceptable. It is not necessary to correct or point out every typographical error, but it is necessary to address major flaws (structural confusion, analytical inconsistency or error, bibliographic omission, etc.). If an article needs to be edited substantially by a native speaker of English before it can be published, that’s the author’s responsibility, and it’s appropriate for a referee to indicate where the language of an article is so problematic as to require that type of stylistic copy editing.

You should return a marked-up copy of the submission to the author along with the report. As noted above, you don’t have to mark every typographical error, but it is often easier to offer comments in the margins of the text itself than in prose in a separate document.

In a well-run journal, referee reports are advisory, which is to say that publication decisions are made by the editor after considering the reports, rather than by merely deferring to the judgment of the referees. If, however, the editor has chosen persons with adequate subject-area expertise and professional responsibility, it would be unusual for that editor then to overrule a unanimous referee recommendation.

Referees should ensure that their comments are professionally respectful, even when they conclude that an article cannot be salvaged. One way to look at negative comments is that the author may or may not agree with the referee’s criticism. If the author agrees, the referee has helped the author improve the article. An author who disagrees with a referee might constructively recognize an opportunity to rewrite the content under contention to make the arguments more persuasive. When a referee misunderstands what the author wrote, it’s possible that the referee was not reading carefully, but it’s no less possible that the author did not present the content effectively.

Guidelines from the Russian review

We have no strict guidelines for referee reports: we’ve found over the years that it is best to let referees say whatever they think needs to be brought to our attention. That said, a report is most helpful when it contains certain things: a summary of the article (as the referee sees it, since often two referees gain different impressions about the true subject of a submission); the major conclusions or points being argued; the contribution, if any, to the field made by the article; the strengths and weaknesses of the piece; suggestions for improving the piece, if such is necessary; and, finally, a recommendation as to whether the piece should be rejected outright (as unsalvageable), rejected but with encouragement that the author revise and resubmit the piece, or accepted (with or without revision).

Guidelines from the Slavic and East European journal (SEEJ)

Please evaluate the essay as a scholarly article addressed to a professional audience primarily of Slavists (e.g., summarizing content of well-known works will not be needed, but of little-known works may be helpful). We ask readers to comment on the solidity of the scholarship, completeness of presentation, clarity of writing, and originality of the contribution to knowledge (new insight on the subject or a new theoretical approach). We look for a clear thesis statement and for content that is well documented and that reflects both command of relevant primary sources in original languages and knowledge of the current state of research in appropriate areas.

We have no specified length or degree of detail for evaluations: we would like at least a few paragraphs, perhaps a couple of pages if warranted. Most readers provide general comments on particular strengths of the essay and the originality (or lack thereof) of its analysis and conclusions within its own field, and offer suggestions for emendations, clarifications, or revisions. Some readers include specific comments keyed to a particular line or paragraph of the submission. Occasional extremely committed readers will send in many pages with every typographical error noted; we appreciate their dedication, but that amount of detail is really not necessary, though it is no doubt helpful to the submitter.

Your comments will be forwarded (anonymously) to the author along with the editor’s decision, and our submitters are always most appreciative of helpful criticism.