Guide for referees

Before being published, paper submissions undergo an anonymous peer-review by at least two reviewers.

Reviewers should evaluate the papers with the following questions in mind: 

  • Does the paper clearly set out its main problematics or puzzle and outline research question(s) to be tackled?
  • Does the author point out why the issue under examination matters and how it is linked to the larger questions in the discipline?
  • Does the paper discuss and include relevant literature?
  • Does the author succeed in arguing their main points throughout the paper, or are there any logical inconsistencies?
  • Is the author clear about their methodology and sources?    
  • Does the author have clear feminist/queer positionality?

Structure of the review

We ask that the referees begin their reviews with a general summary (paragraph or two) of their feedback, where the referees identify the puzzle and the argument the author makes, its major strengths and weaknesses and makes a recommendation as to whether the submission should be:  

  1. Accepted without corrections
  2. Accepted with minor corrections
  3. Needs to be resubmitted with major corrections
  4. Rejected.

Following, we ask the reviewers to list the both "major" issues (such as problems with methodology, insufficient data, any theoretical or logical inconsistencies, failure to incorporate a particular set of literature or important authors) and  minor issues (relate to issues of tone, style, grammar among others). 

Generally, we ask the reviewers to provide constructive feedback that will allow the authors to address reviewer’s concerns and improve the paper.