Submitting authors and special section editors have the option to adopt signed review for their articles or sections. In signed or open peer review, referees sign their comments, and typically continue to consult with authors, who are also named, through the review process.
Signed review has many benefits, including the promise of collegial exchange and open lines of communication. The option is especially attractive for bounded domains of study, where many scholars may already be known to one another, and anonymity becomes a barrier to honest exchange.
If you are a submitting author who is interested in signed review, please follow the following guidelines. Note that referees are expected to adhere to HMS’s general peer review guidelines .
In signed review, the identities of both authors and reviewers are disclosed to each other.
Referees are provided access to the submitted manuscript, hosted on the journal’s PubPub platform.
Referees should use PubPub’s built-in comments feature to make suggestions and pose questions anchored to a specific area of the text.
Referees should draft overall comments, focused on the essay’s promise and what it would take to fully achieve that promise, as pertains to specific topics addressed, literature engaged, analysis provided, evidence used, and clarity of writing.
The editors will also conduct their own open review. They will append their own report, together with the referees’, below the Bibliography.
Authors are notified when a review has been completed. Authors should carefully attend to inline comments and to each referee’s report. Authors should also append to the PubPub manuscript a short narrative statement with an overview of the revisions they have made, below the referee reports, with a header “Response to Referees and Editors,” and notify the editors that the response has been posted.
Referees will be asked to review the revised manuscript alongside the authors’ revision statement, following the same procedure as above.
Authors are notified when a second-round review has been completed, with a request for a second round of revision in most cases. Authors may modify their Response to Referees and notify the editors of the change.
The editors may request a third round of review, and/or offer additional comments.
Depending on author and referee preferences, referee and editor reports may be published alongside the published article.
History of Media Studies is committed to a humane, care-based, and developmental review process, with the goal to improve manuscripts through collegial exchange. Authors and referees are encouraged to consult our guidelines for peer review.
Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions.