Pelagic’s scholarly monographs and edited volumes undergo the following peer review process. The standard framework is a two-stage peer review, though the precise workflow may vary depending on the nature of the book.
Proposal Review
All book proposals are first assessed by a subject-specialist commissioning editor to determine if they are of suitable quality and originality for our publishing programme. Where the commissioning editor considers it appropriate, additional external feedback may be sought at this stage.
For edited volumes and books in series, volume editors and series editors, as subject-matter experts, provide detailed guidance and feedback to the author and commissioning editor.
Manuscript Review
Draft manuscripts are reviewed by at least one external peer reviewer, appointed by the commissioning editor to provide a peer review report on the manuscript. We use a single-blind review process. Reviewers are asked to declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review.
The peer reviewer(s) are supplied with a standard reporting form to provide structured feedback on the originality and quality of the work, together with suggestions for areas of improvement.
The peer review report is passed, anonymised, to the author, who is asked to comment on the report and to suggest revisions to be made in the light of the reviewer’s feedback. If one or more reviewers raise significant concerns or if an author suggests substantial revisions to their manuscript, additional rounds of review may follow. On the basis of the peer review report(s) and the author’s response, the commissioning editor will decide on whether to proceed with publication, request revisions, or decline the manuscript.