Peer Review Statement

UJ Press employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and significance of all published manuscripts. We are committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and fairness.

The Publisher and Discipline Editors carefully examine submitted manuscripts to ensure that they are sent to appropriately selected reviewers. Peer reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in the topic of the manuscript and their ability to provide constructive critique to improve the manuscript.

Double-blind Peer Reviewers

Only reviewers who are experts in the field of the manuscript are requested to review the manuscript.  Peer reviewers for UJ Press are not financially rewarded in any way.

Manuscripts are anonymised by removing any identifying information about the authors or editors before being sent to reviewers.

Reviews are also anonymised, with authors and editors not having access to their names or affiliations.

This double-blind process minimises potential bias and ensures that manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scientific merit.

Selection of Reviewers

UJ Press identifies unique reviewers for each manuscript based on the topic of that specific manuscript. Suitable reviewers are found on Google Scholar. In selected cases, UJ Press also encourages the participation of emerging scholars to work as reviewers in order for them to develop as scholars. UJ Press ensures that the reviewers of manuscripts come from different institutions to the authors or editors to avoid potential conflicts of interest and ensure unbiased evaluations. Should reviewers take too long to review a manuscript, don’t reply to emails or give reviews that are factually incorrect, discriminating, derogatory, slanderous or demeaning they are immediately removed from the review process and noted as reviewers that should not be asked to review again.

Peer reviewers may not affiliated to the same institution as any of the authors or editors of the manuscript, have co-authored with the author(s) or editors, nor have been supervisors of the author(s) for the manuscript in question.

Peer Review Process

Each manuscript is typically reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Should there be a big difference between the two reviews then a third reviewer will be enlisted.

Reviewers are provided with clear guidelines and evaluation criteria to ensure consistency and thoroughness in their assessments.

Reviewers are asked to make suggestions on how the manuscript can be improved. Reviewers always report in writing, with clear recommendations for acceptance of the manuscript in question, with or without revision, or rejection, as the case may be. Where relevant, the reviewers are asked to identify gaps that could be explored to enhance the interpretability and strength of the findings and/or insights of a manuscript.

Reviewers assess the manuscript for:

• Originality of research question and the findings of the article
• Soundness of methodology
• Validity of results
• Clarity and significance of conclusions
• Adherence to ethical research principles
• If there are gaps that could be explored to enhance the interpretability and strength of the findings and/or insights

• Clarity of writing, organisation, and adherence to the press's submission guidelines
• The overall contribution of the work to the field, including its relevance and potential impact on future research
• The conclusion is justified by the results and/or argument presented in the manuscript.

Confidentiality

All reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts they review. This includes not sharing the content of the manuscript with anyone outside the review process.

Evaluation of Reviews and Feedback to Authors

Based on the reviewers' reports, the Press Manager makes the final decision on publication (accept, reject, revise).

Authors and Editors receive detailed feedback from the reviewers to guide them in revising their manuscripts for potential publication.

Reviewer reports are carefully assessed by the Press Manager to decide whether they constitute the basis for the publication of the manuscript in question, or whether publication should follow if certain improvements are effected and/or further work done and reported on; or whether the manucript should be rejected.

Rejections

The process for handling rejected submissions occurs at three different stages:

Desktop Rejection: This is an immediate rejection based on a preliminary review of the article by the Discipline Editor on the submission of the manuscript.  Manuscripts are usually rejected if they do not fit the Press’s scope, fail to meet basic quality standards, if plagiarism is detected or if AI tools have been used to generate the content of the manuscript.

Rejection After Review: This occurs after peer review, where the decision to reject is based on feedback from reviewers who may find significant flaws or weaknesses in the research.  All authors or editors are given thorough feedback to explain why their manuscripts have been rejected and substantial guidance to help them improve on their work.

Rejection Before Publication: After an author has made changes suggested by peer reviewers all manuscripts are put through Turnitin before they are language edited.  Should an article receive a Turnitin score of more than 10, the manuscript will be rejected for publication.  The Press Manager may use AI tools to detect AI usage in a manuscript and if AI tools have been used to generate the content of the manuscript, the Press Manager will reject the manuscript. Plagiarism and/or the use of AI to generate content is taken very seriously by UJ Press.

The press tracks and reports rejection rates to the Press Director on a monthly basis.  This ensures that a quality standard is maintained. The rejection rates are calculated for the desktop rejection, review rejections and rejections before publication.

UJ Press aims to work on a nine to twelve-month turnaround time for publications. Timelines are as follows depending on the availability of reviewers:

• Initial Screening: 1-2 weeks
• Internal Review: 1-2 months
• External Review: 1-2 months

All peer reviews are archived and kept on the UJ Press Open Monograph Press.

UJ Press follows a developmental approach in peer review, especially for emerging researchers. The Press Manager and Discipline Editors provide constructive feedback that supports authors in addressing comments and improving their work.  Where preliminary desktop rejections are made due to technical standards and readiness before formal peer review, the Press Manager sends detailed feedback to help authors develop their manuscripts further and invites them to re-submit.

Once the review process is concluded, the Press Manager informs the reviewers of the overall outcome of the review process and may share the review comments submitted to the author(s).

All peer review reports are considered confidential information and are not shared with people outside of the editorial team.  It is the Press Manager’s responsibility to collate peer reviews into one report which is shared with author(s).  Peer reviews are not shared with other journals, publishers, editors or editorial teams. Peer reviews from other publishers are not accepted by UJ Press.