Guidelines: Peer Reviewers
Early Theatre submission, peer review, and editorial processes work to support and improve the new work that authors send to the journal. All submissions are assessed by at least two readers. For the sake of rigour and consistency, and in order to mitigate unconscious bias, the journal uses a standardized independent, fully anonymous peer-review process (both contibutors and readers are anonymous). Author names will be absent from reviewed manuscripts; reader reports will also be anonymous. Please ensure that you have removed all hidden identifyfing information from your report's wordprocessing formatting. A copy of your report, edited if required, will be sent to the author unless you indicate otherwise.
Key Points for Preparing Your Review Report:
We ask that you observe the following key points when preparing your peer review report:
- Please submit your assessment within 4 weeks of having received the article. Early Theatre seeks to report expeditiously to authors on their submissions. Reporting within 4 weeks of your receipt of the article will help us to maintain our timetable.
- Use your own judgment about the appropriate length of your appraisal. Typically, manuscript assessments for Early Theatre are about 300-500 words long.
- In your report, please assess the article's originality, thesis development, argumentation, notes and references, and readability. Do not feel the need to copy-edit. Your comments on notes and references should indicate their usefulness and scholarship, not their stylistic accuracy.
- We suggest that you type up your report in a wordprocessing file, save to your computer, and then copy and paste your comments into our website's online review form. (The first window will be for comments to the editors and the author; the second window will be for comments addressed only to the editors.)
- Register one of the following recommendations using the dropdown menu: (1) Accept Submission: no revisions, or minor submissions only as indicated in the reader report, required; (2) Revisions Required: the submission requires revisions that can likely be reviewed and accepted by the editors, without needing to be vetted through another round of peer review; (3) Resubmit for Review: the submission shows promise but requires extensive revisions or significant rethinking before it can be reassessed through another round of peer review; (4) Decline Submission: the submission has too many significant weaknesses and should be rejected without an option to resubmit; (5) See Comments: if none of the above recommendations make sense, you can leave a comment for the editors detailing your concerns.
- Please destroy your copy of the manuscript after you review it or, if you have annotated it for the author’s benefit, please return it to us and we will forward it to the author. This manuscript is a privileged document and should be treated as such.