The purpose of the journal and its review process is twofold: (i) to develop post-graduate work to a publishable standard and (ii) to give further guidance and constructive criticism to the author as to how the piece could be improved for publication in a highly-tiered journal.
Those papers which do demonstrate promise to the editors will, in most instances, be seen by referees twice during the refereeing process. This is because (i) there is an assumption that the papers received will require revising in order to be of sufficient quality to be published in Global Discourse in the first instance, and (ii) after publication, would also benefit from additional comments from the reviewer which suggest ways in which the paper could be re-worked and revised for publication in a highly-tiered journal.
The first stage is a blind review conducted much in the manner of a traditional tier-two referee’s report. If the referee deems the paper to be of sufficient quality to be publishable following revision, the comments provided should enable the author to make such changes in a constructive and realistic manner.
The second stage is a full, 800-1500 word critical review, following completion of the first round of revisions. This review should reconstruct briefly and engage substantively with the argument at hand, as well as identifying methodological, conceptual or empirical deficits which require attention in order to be accepted by a more prestigious journal. The review can draw links to broader issues within the research environment and pinpoint scope for further development and exploration.
In those instances where the article is deemed by the referee to be, in the first instance, suitable for publication in a tier-two journal, the referee’s substantive 800-1500 word review will be published alongside the piece as a stimulus for discussion among, and as an educative device for, our readers.
