•  
  •  
 

Open Peer Review Procedures

Become a Reviewer

The open peer review process at Transforming Communities (TC) supports transparency and collaboration among authors, reviewers, and editors during the review process. TC uses an open peer review model in which reviewer identities are disclosed with published works. Reviewers and authors may choose to disclose their identities to one another during the review process before publication. TC does not publish reviews or any other materials produced during the open peer review process. Open peer review is managed by the TC editorial team who screen new submissions and make final decisions about acceptance, revision, and rejection of works for publication based on guidance provided by reviewers.

How to Become a Peer Reviewer

We are looking for peer reviewers to join our journal team who have expertise in various social challenges affecting communities and solutions/interventions to address them, including academics, practitioners, and community members. We value diverse perspectives and professional experience in the peer review process. We provide a 30-minute online training module introducing reviewers to open peer review procedures at TC. Peer reviewers are contacted to review submissions based on their expertise in relevant areas. Peer reviewers can expect to review no more than 2-3 journal submissions annually.

To contact us about becoming a peer reviewer at TC, please click the “Become a Peer Reviewer” button on the left menu or at the top of this page.

Screening

New submissions are screened by the Editor-in-Chief. Submissions must fit within the journal’s aims and scope by

  • sharing research findings or evaluating community-engaged work with a focus on issues relevant to improving community well-being,
  • aiming to reach a wide audience by clearly explaining concepts and reducing jargon,
  • and meeting the journal’s standards for bias-free and inclusive language.

Submissions that fit within the journal’s aims and scope and meet basic formatting requirements are assigned to a journal section. An Associate Editor from the assigned journal section will manage the open peer review process.

Open Identities & Early Disclosure

Reviewer names are identified and published with the final work. However, reviewers and authors may choose to disclose their identities to one another during the review process before publication. Early disclosure will only occur if:

  1. The reviewer and author(s) mutually agree to early disclosure.
  2. Requirements for conflicts of interests and competing interests are met.
  3. The reviewer and author(s) have agreed to TC’s ethical policy.

If you are an author or reviewer, please contact the Associate Editor assigned to your submission for more information about the early disclosure process. Decisions about early disclosure are finalized by the managing Associate Editor and Editor-in-Chief.

Bias-Free and Inclusive Language Standards

TC is committed to anti-racist practices in peer reviewing and editing (Anti-Racist Scholarly Reviewing Practices, 2021). We use bias-free and inclusive language standards according to the American Psychological Association’s guidance in the APA Publication Manual, Seventh Edition (2020) and Inclusive Language Guidelines (2021).

Peer Review Process

Each submission is peer-reviewed by two reviewers. Associate Editors invite reviewers to participate who have expertise relevant to the submission’s topic. Reviewers will provide feedback in a review document that critically evaluates the submission for quality, relevance, and contribution to areas of knowledge or practice, including ways that the submission addresses gaps in scholarship (Anderson et al., 2019). Reviews include recommendations about acceptance, revision, or rejection of the submission for publication in TC.

Peer Review Training Packet

Download the Peer Review Training Packet.

Timeline for Editorial Decisions on Submissions

The journal’s goal for total turnaround time on editorial decisions for manuscript submissions is 100 working days from the submission date. Within that timeframe, our goals are to:

  1. Complete initial screening within 15 days of submission at which time authors are notified about the screening decision by the Editor-in-Chief, and the submission is assigned to an Associate Editor for peer review by two reviewers.
  2. Complete reviews within 45 days of submission (i.e., 30 days after screening) at which time two reviews are circulated to editors and authors.
  3. Revise and resubmit within 75 days of submission (i.e., 30 days after receiving reviews).
  4. Complete reviewer feedback on revised submissions within 95 days of submission (i.e., 20 days after resubmission).
  5. Make final editorial decisions within 100 days of submission (i.e., 5 days after second round of reviewer feedback is completed).

References

Alexander, J., Cheek, R., Itchuaqiyaq, C.U., Shirley, B., and Walton, R. (2019, March 13). Specific, knowledgeable, and kind: A heuristic for the journal publication process. Workshop presented at the 22nd Annual Association of Teachers of Technical Writing Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.

American Psychological Association. (2021). Inclusive language guidelines. https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines.pdf.

 

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association 2020: The official guide to APA style (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.

Anti-Racist Scholarly Reviewing Practices: A Heuristic for Editors, Reviewers, and Authors. (2021). https://tinyurl.com/reviewheuristic.

Beck, J., Funk, K., Harrison M., McEntyre, J., Breen, J., Collings, A., Donohoe, P., Evans, E., Flintoft, L., Hamelers, A., Hurst, P., Lemberger, T., Lin, J., O’Connor, N., Parkin, M., Parker, S., Rodgers, P., Skipper, M., and Stoner, M. (2018). Publishing peer review materials. F1000Res. 7(1655). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6206614/.

Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Library Faculty Publications and Presentations, 1. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=ulib_fac.  

Ross-Hellauer, T. & Görögh, E. (2019). Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4(4), 1-12. https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9.pdf.