Global Discourse

The purpose of the journal and its review process is twofold: (i) to develop projects to a publishable standard and (ii) to stimulate and develop a dynamic discussion of the issues and approach. Referees are requested to complete the Report form for referees.

Overview of Process

Global Discourse has a distinctive two-stage review process:

The first stage is a blind review conducted much in the manner of a traditional referee’s report. The referee can make four recommendations: 1) accept without revision; 2) accept with minor amendments; 3) support publication with significant revisions and, 4) reject. The initial report must explain substantively the decision taken.

Papers accepted without revision proceed to the second stage of the process, while rejected papers are removed from the process.

In instances of recommendations 2 or 3, the required revisions will be outlined clearly and constructively in the referee’s report. Recommendations for significant revisions must not be suggested unless there is reasonable potential for publication subject to a clear set of revisions.

Authors whose referees have recommended minor amendments are requested to complete amendments within four weeks of receipt of the decision. Authors with decision 3 revisions are requested to complete revisions within eight weeks of receipt. In exceptional cases, such as where further empirical research is required or personal circumstances intervene, a period of twelve weeks may be granted.

All revised manuscripts must be accompanied by an overview of revisions. Changes may be tracked in word processing software to assist in the identification of revisions.

Revised manuscripts are returned to referees. The referee is entitled to request further revision, should it be deemed that the initial round of revisions fail to address the concerns of the first report.

If the manuscript is deemed suitable for publication, the referee will complete the second part of the review: a full critical reply to be published alongside the article. This reply, which generally exceeds 800 words, engages substantively with the argument at hand and identifies methodological, conceptual or empirical issues of contention for further discussion. The reply can draw links to broader issues within the research environment and pinpoint scope for further development and exploration in the broader project. An example of the substantive reply can be found at: http://globaldiscourse.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/femia.pdf

Authors are entitled to reply to the referee’s reply. Referees can elect to remain anonymous in their reply.

Authors must ensure that their paper conforms to the Global Discourse style guide prior to publication.

If you require further clarification of the process, please contact the editor, Matthew Johnson, at editor@global-discourse.com.

Target timescales for review process in chronological order

Guidelines

Please include all comments intended for the editors under ‘For the Editors’. These will not be forwarded to authors. Please include comments and suggested revisions intended for the author/s in the section ‘Report for Author/s’.

The purpose of the review is primarily to identify means of maximising the potential of the paper. In conducting the review, please consider the following:

How might the paper make a more distinctive and effective contribution to the existing literature?

In what ways might the paper be made to fit more clearly within, and address, the central theme of the issue?

How might the coherence, cogency and clarity of the paper be improved?

In what ways might contentious elements of the article be made subject to reasonable disagreement?

Is there any reasonable prospect of the article being revised successfully within the target timescales outlined above?