Peer Review Process

The review process at Nordic Journal of Literacy Research is double blind. The editorial team and reviewers alone determine whether submissions are to be published, independent of the publisher, NOASP – Cappelen Damm Akademisk.

1. Editorial review

The editors will review the manuscript and evaluate whether it fits into the profile of the journal and meets basic standards of quality.

Editors consider competing interests when a manuscript is submitted by a colleague at their own institution or from their research network. In this case, a co-editor – or an external trusted expert – with no such connections is asked to act as the editor for that particular paper.

Should a member of a journal’s editorial team submit a manuscript to the journal, a co-editor will be assigned to take charge of the entire review process and act as editor for that particular paper. Alternatively, the co-editor may assign an external trusted expert. The person acting as editor will be named as responsible editor of the article, indicating that the editor who submitted the paper has had nothing to do with the handling of this particular article.

It is the responsibility of the editor-in-chief to appoint guest editors of special issues. Guest editors are informed that the practices outlined above also apply to guest editors.

2. Peer review

2.1 The peers

If the manuscript passes point 1, the next step is peer review by two peers who possess a relevant doctoral degree or equivalent and competence with respect to the actual topic(s). As a main rule, one of the peers will be from the same country as the author, or will be familiar with the professional tradition in the author’s country. Members of the editorial team cannot also be peer reviewers.

2.2 Procedure of peer review

The review is based on reciprocal anonymity. In addition to a general evaluation of the scientific level of the manuscript, the peer will be asked to evaluate:

  • The logical coherence, structure and legibility of the manuscript,
  • The current interest and value of the manuscript,
  • Whether the issues addressed are discussed and analysed in a proper way,
  • Whether the conclusions are supported by sources and data,
  • Whether the use of sources is conscientious and methodically acceptable,
  • Whether the references are satisfactory and in accordance with the editorial instructions.

The peer will also be asked whether he or she recommends publication; publication after improvements; or does not recommend publication.

Peer reviewers are expected to disclose any competing interests. Reviews shall be objective and constructive. Reviewers shall consider the methodological rigor of the submission, the appropriateness of findings on the basis of methodology, the appropriateness of conclusions, proper establishment of the contribution within the scholarly literature more broadly, among other things. All reviewed manuscripts shall be treated confidentially.

3. Final review

The editors have the final decision whether a manuscript will be published.

More information