Peer Review Policy

Book proposals are subject to independent, external peer review by a minimum of two reviewers possessing relevant expertise in the subject matter. Authors, or volume editors in the case of contributed volumes, are requested to submit the names of three qualified reviewers with their proposals. The Books@Atla Open Press editorial board reserves the right to assign reviewers of its own choice.

The peer review process is managed by Atla Open Press. Depending on the nature of the book proposal, the review will be either partly closed or fully closed. Two positive reviews are required to advance the book proposal. In the event that one negative and one positive evaluation are received, the book proposal may be sent to a third reviewer. Following receipt of the evaluations, book proposals will be either accepted, requested for resubmission with revisions, or declined. Reviewer feedback will be anonymized before it is shared with the author or volume editor.

Atla Open Press will provide readers with specific information about the nature of the peer review process for each of its published works. A statement indicating how the project was reviewed will be added to the front matter of each publication.

General Guidelines for Peer Reviewers with Atla Open Press

Atla Open Press relies upon the knowledge and expertise of peer reviewers to provide critical feedback on prospective journal articles and monographs. Atla Open Press strives to select reviewers from diverse identities, backgrounds, geographic areas, and career levels. The editors serving Atla Open Press select reviewers from those who have registered as reviewers on individual publication web sites and who have clearly articulated reviewing interests, although external reviewers will be sought when needed or when required by policy. If you are interested in serving as a peer reviewer with Atla Open Press, please contact the editorial board for further information on how to register or how to edit your existing OJS or OMP account to add reviewing interests.

Anonymous peer review is utilized by Atla Open Press and is managed through OJS and OMP, the publishing systems operated by Atla Open Press. This means that reviewers will be provided with access to an anonymized manuscript and a specific reviewer form on the publication’s site. Reviewers will also be asked to provide a general recommendation for the manuscript (e.g. accept, revisions required, declined) as well as detailed comments and feedback supporting the recommendation. Reviews will be shared with authors anonymously and retained on the Atla Open Press publishing systems. Reviewers are uncompensated but a letter of acknowledgement for providing this service can be provided upon request for inclusion in a reviewer’s portfolio or CV.

Below are general guidelines for peer reviewers in completing their review. Reviewers are also encouraged to review COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. The editorial boards of the publications of Atla Open Press that have implemented peer review will provide a timeline for completing the review as well as a specific review form, which reflects the needs and objectives of that publication, to reviewers to aid in the completion of their review. 

  • Peer reviewer comments should be suitable for sending to the author. They should be constructive suggestions that seek clarification or elaboration on any unclear point or that suggest how the author could improve the quality of their organization and presentation of ideas. Specifically, reviewers should assess whether the authors make a new contribution to the field, present research and evidence to support the ideas or hypotheses, and communicate their ideas clearly to readers.
  • Peer reviewers may disagree with an author’s position or viewpoint but this should not factor into a reviewer’s final assessment if the research is otherwise present to support the author’s position or viewpoint. 
  • Peer reviewers are not copyeditors and are not expected to edit the submission for grammar or spelling. Such feedback from a reviewer is acceptable, however, where it would aid in clarifying an author’s presentation of ideas.
  • Peer reviewers should make all reasonable efforts to submit their report and recommendation in the timeframe established by the editorial board and inform the editorial board in advance if an extension of time is required or if the review cannot be completed as directed.
  • Reviewers must keep the peer review process confidential and not share information about a submission to anyone outside the review and editorial process.