Volunteer to become a Reviewer for Journal Submissions, Book Proposals, or Book Manuscripts
If you are interested in becoming a Volunteer Peer Reviewer for Common Ground's journal submissions and/or book imprints, please read our Peer Review Policies and use the Reviewer Volunteer Form to apply.
The peer review process is dependent on each person who submits an article for peer review to also participate in the review of other articles. The sustainability of our journals is based on this model. This collaboration of authors/reviewers is what allows authors to receive academic critique of their submitted articles without requiring a submission fee or a review fee. Our approach to peer review seeks to be inclusive. Those who write for Common Ground's academic journals and/or participate as presenters at Common Ground's academic conferences also serve as peer reviewers, creating a sustainable cycle of high-quality feedback. Common Ground Research Networks uses a two way anonymous peer review system. The publisher, editors, reviewers, and authors all agree upon the standards of expected ethical behavior as based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices.
Peer reviewers are selected from a list of qualified volunteers or from a list of qualified authors. Volunteer reviewers with the appropriate credentials, skills, and expertise are carefully selected by our editorial staff to review appropriately fitting assignments. Authors of article submissions which have qualified to enter the peer review process also qualify to be selected as reviewers for other articles currently in peer review. All reviewers are carefully selected by the editorial staff to properly match areas of expertise to appropriate submissions. Reviewers are assigned on the basis of subject matter and disciplinary expertise. Reviewers are encouraged to request reassignment if an article is outside their area expertise, if the article for review is too closely related to the reviewer's niche of expertise, or if the selection results in a conflict of any kind. If a peer reviewer feels unqualified to review a particular assigned article, the reviewer must notify a member of Common Ground Research Networks' editorial team to be withdrawn from the assignment.
The peer review system is structured upon a basic principle of reciprocity. It is dependent on qualified authors reviewing article submissions from their peers. Authors participate as peer reviews out of respect for those who have reviewed (or will review) their own article submissions. Authors should expect to review at least three articles each per article submission. While authors should expect to receive three assignments, the need for reviewers within particular can vary and it is possible that fewer than three articles will be assigned. Assignments will not always be from the same Research Network as your own submission. The complete details of reviewer responsibilities are listed under the Duties of Reviewers section in the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
Articles published in Common Ground Journals are peer reviewed by scholars who are active members of our research networks. Reviewers may be past or present conference delegates, fellow submitters to the journals, or scholars who have volunteered to review articles (and have been screened by Common Ground’s editorial team). This engagement with the research network, as well as Common Ground’s synergistic and criterion-based evaluation system, distinguishes the peer-review process from journals that have a more top-down approach to refereeing. Reviewers are assigned to articles based on their academic interests and scholarly expertise. After a peer review report has been verified, reviewers can request a certificate of service by contacting email@example.com or by replying to the Referee Report Verified email message.
Reviewers are given two weeks to complete their referee assignments. If you receive an assignment are unable to complete it in the two-week time frame, please respond immediately so that our publishing department can reassign the article to another reviewer.
If you have been selected as a reviewer, then you will receive an email with a link to download your referee assignment. If you are having trouble downloading your assignment, then please contact us. Please note that if it has been over two weeks since you have received your assignment and you are unable to download the article, then you may have been removed as a referee from that article.
First, read the article and complete the referee report form included. Make annotations to the article using a method that clearly differentiates your text from the author’s, such as block letters, different colored text, or the “Track Changes” function in Microsoft Word. This is a two-way anonymous review. If your name appears as the commenter, we will delete your identifying information. Upload the completed report to CGPublisher using the same link from which you downloaded the original report. When uploading the completed report, please include the total score and recommend a publication decision.
Our publishing model is intended to ensure that authors speaking English as a second language are given the equal opportunity to receive feedback from a peer-review process to critique and improve the conceptual material of their articles. If you are reviewing a submission that you believe is not written by a native English speaker, please be mindful of this ideal; evaluate the text for its conceptual material and select “Professional Editing Required” to indicate the article needs assistance with certain rules or nuances of the English language.