All articles submitted to a Ubiquity Press journal are initially assessed by an Editor, who decides whether or not the article fits the scope of the journal and is suitable for peer-review. Submissions considered suitable for peer-review are assigned to independent experts, who are asked to assess the article for clarity, validity, and sound methodology. Based on the reviewer reports the editor will make a decision to for ask for revisions, accept or reject the submission. If conflicting review feedback is provided, or if the feedback is unclear, then the editor will engage with the reviewers to further discuss the submission and the suggested editorial decision. Overall editorial responsibility rests with the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, who is supported by an expert, international Editorial Board.
Ubiquity Press journals can operate double-blind, blind, or open peer-review processes. Journals also have the option of releasing their peer-review comments alongside publications, either in an anonymised or open format. Whilst the press encourages open processes, journals are able to choose their preferred review option. All reviewers must provide a competing interests statement prior to returning their review feedback.
We aim to make the review process as efficient as possible, whilst maintaining a high quality of reviewer feedback. In most cases, the review period is expected to take around six weeks. Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal.
As members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Ubiquity Press ensures that journal teams receive editorial support, ethical guidance and professional networking. All of our journals adhere to the COPE guidelines for best practice.
Please visit the journal website for specific Editorial Policies.
Ubiquity Press ensures that all book publications are reviewed. Our internal editorial team reviews all book proposals that are submitted to the press, where the proposal information focuses on the academic nature of the submission and background to the project, the structure and style of the book, and the intended audience. After discussion with the authors (/book editors) the editorial team will make a decision on whether revisions to the proposal are required or whether the proposal can be accepted or rejected.
All books that contain research output also have their full text thoroughly peer reviewed by at least one external reviewer (normally two or more). Experts within the subject area are asked to comment on the strength of the methodology and the analysis of data, whether conclusions are supported by sufficient evidence/data, whether the content is well structured, and if the submission includes up-to-date information on the subject and adequate referencing. After review feedback is received the editorial manager will collate the feedback and ask the authors (/ book editors) for relevant revisions, or accept/reject the book for publication. If revisions are requested, then these must be completed prior to the book being editorially accepted for publication. If major revisions have been requested then the re-submitted book may be sent out for subsequent rounds of review.
Our standard peer-review process works on a single-blind workflow, where the identity of reviewers is kept anonymous to the authors (/book editors) during the editorial process, however we can offer open peer-review, if requested. All reviewers must provide a statement declaring any competing interests prior to sending back their review feedback.
Books that are not primarily an output of research (e.g. of a commentary or opinion nature) may not be sent for external peer review but will instead undergo an extensive internal editorial review and revisions process. These books will also be clearly labelled as being not externally reviewed.
In some cases, a book or journal article may be submitted that has already gone through a peer review process (for example, an edited book whereby the coordinating editor has already arranged external review, or a journal article submitted to another journal but rejected due to scope rather than quality). In these cases we offer a streamlined review option, whereby the existing review feedback may be used to evaluate whether further review is required.
As a minimum criteria, Ubiquity Press/the journal will ask for details of the journal/publisher that completed the review process, the identity and contact details of each reviewer (if available), along with the decision letter, complete review feedback and revision history. Competing interest statements will be sought from the reviewers, who may also be asked to confirm that they stand by the review feedback that has been submitted. The journal/publisher that conducted the original review process will also be contacted, asking that they confirm that the details provided are correct and reflect the complete review feedback as well as to provide more information on the review process, should it be needed. Once the existing review data is assessed, Ubiquity Press/the journal will decide whether to conduct a full peer review, a reduced review process, or accept/reject the submission based on the existing review files.
Very occasionally a review process may be used that does not fit the exact processes detailed above. Should this occur then details of the review process will be published within the book content, ensuring that readers know the review information in an open and transparent format.