Guidelines for Open Peer Review

Culture Machine & Open Peer Review

Culture Machine has always been a peer reviewed journal. The peer review process has typically been organised by the invited editors for each volume, who were responsible for contacting peer reviewers, sending them articles of interest for each volume, analysing their reports or evaluations, and collaborating with the authors to implement and endorse the suggested modifications in such assessments. This was usually done anonymously.

However, being a journal in the field of contemporary humanities, belonging to a network of independent academic publishers with a critical view of the assumptions and dynamics of scientific communication, Culture Machine has been close to the analyses and questions developed within academic communities regarding the standards and parameters of peer review as an expert guarantee of quality, relevance, or value.

Always interested in experimentation, intellectual risk, critical responsibility, and the radical democratisation of knowledge creation processes, Culture Machine, in its Vol 22 ‘Anthropocene Infrapolitics‘ started experimenting with an open peer review process, intending to raise the question of the meaning of peer review – beyond ‘quality control’, positivist assumptions about scientificity, or the economic value of knowledge.

Process

For Culture Machine’s Vol 23 ‘Publishing after Progress’ we are following an open peer review process, based on the practice of open identities where authors and reviewers are aware of each other’s identities. Each article will be reviewed by two external reviewers. Should any of the authors be uncomfortable with this, please don’t hesitate to let us know, and we will arrange a more ‘classical’, anonymous, peer review procedure for them.

Peer reviewing phase [PERIOD]
Deadline for revised contributions [DATE]

After receiving the full articles, I, as guest editor of the journal, will establish the contact between authors and reviewers in an email to which the submitted article will be attached. Please agree between the reviewers and authors which feedback mode and language you consider most convenient and productive. For example, whether feedback is given directly in the word doc (please make sure to use tracking mode in case you’d like to insert corrections directly into the text), takes the form of a summative document, or a more fragmented exchange via several emails.

As reviewers, please make sure that you respond to authors as timely as possible, so they have the time to react to your inputs.

As guest editor, I hope that this exchange will evolve as conversation among peers. I will not be part of the conversations between reviewers and authors (please make sure to delete me from cc). However, should you have questions during the process or feel insecure or uncomfortable, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

After the peer reviewing process, we kindly ask the reviewers to send us a short summary of their comments and feedbacks.

Collaboration & Commitment

We invite authors and reviewers to interact with each other based on the assumption that everyone participating is exerting their best efforts in actively working together towards making Culture Machine’s Vol 23 ‘Publishing after Progress’ an exciting and thought-provoking issue. One of the main goals of this issue is to bring people from different disciplinary, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds into a multifaceted conversation. For this reason, all comments and feedback should be aimed towards supporting the authors’ unique voices as they are resonating within their contributions. Critique should be delivered in a considerate and constructive manner and evolve always in relation to the special issue’s topic, through showcasing potential amendments, developments, and expansions of the contribution under review, for example. Intellectual generosity should be prioritised when providing or receiving comments and feedback.

While reviewers are not expected to refrain from rigorous analysis, questioning, or debate, they are invited to offer these in a spirit of collaboration and commitment to knowledge diversity and justice. While authors are expected to actively elaborate and strengthen their arguments in response to peer reviews, as a condition for publication, they are not expected to attend to all reviewer requests that have not been properly justified. Any disagreements in this regard will be mediated by the guest-editor.

Guiding Questions for Reviewers

Please answer the following questions clearly and thoughtfully, considering they will form the basis of your exchange with the authors.

Comprehensive/leading question for reviewers
• Based on your expertise and critical position, what do you expect this special issue to accomplish in relation to its call for papers on ‘Publishing after Progress’?

Article-related questions
• How does this article/contribution relate to the topic, how does it contribute to the special issue’s scope?

• What could be done to amend, develop, and expand the argument made in this article in relation to the topic, according to your stated expectations of what the issue should accomplish?

Please make sure to always justify and argue your comments and feedback.