Selection and Peer Review Process

SELECTION AND PEER REVIEW PROCESS

All articles considered for publication in the European Journal of Cultural Management and Policy have gone through a double-blind peer review process

Following the assessment protocol, reviewers are asked to grade the following items with one among the fours following options: Excellent, Good, Fair,  Deficient.

  • Core content assessment:
  1. Adaptation to the subject of the journal
  2. Title
  3. Abstract and keywords
  4. Conceptual framework and the quality of analysis
  5. Contributions to the theoretical argument and contribution to knowledge
  6. Originality
  7. Methodology
  8. Discourse coherence/structure of the paper
  • Paper presentation
  1. Wording and style
  2. Pertinence and quality of the references
  3. Pertinence and quality of the tables/graphics

In accordance to this assessment, reviewers issue a verdict among the following options:

  •  A) ACCEPT: It is recommended to publish the article without making any changes.
  • (B) REVISE AND RESUBMIT: It is recommended to publish with some minor changes. The required changes must be based on the aforementioned specific criteria.
  • (C) CONDITIONAL ACCEPT: Contingent upon major revisions. In the case of conditional acceptance, the editors will specify necessary revisions in writing to ENCATC to be passed along to the author. See section III.
  • (D) REJECT: It is not recommended to publish the article.

In case of acceptance subjected to minor or major revisions, reviewers are requested to submit comments for the authors to improve the weak points in their articles. When acceptance is subjected to major changes, articles go through a second assessment by the reviewers, once the authors have submitted a new, revised version of the article following the reviewers' suggestions.

In case of disagreement between the two reviewers, the Editorial Board reserves the right to make a decision on whether the article should be published or not, or to submit the text to a third reviewer. 

The editors also reserve the right to make a first prior selection in case a big amount of papers is received.

REVIEW GUIDELINES

The Full Peer Review consists of two phases:

Independent Review

During the Independent Review phase, the reviewers assess the manuscript independently from each other and from the authors, according to a standardized review template. These templates are adapted to each article type.

Interactive Review

During the Interactive Review phase, authors and reviewers can interact with each other through real-time comments in the discussion forum – with the aim of addressing all concerns about the manuscript. The handling Editor oversees the review process, and, if required, the Editor in Chief can also enter the Review Forum.

The following articles types undergo a full peer review:

Original Research

Impact papers

Policy Briefs


Short Peer Review Guidelines

The following articles types are attributed a shortened peer review:

Commentaries

Biographies

Editorials

Short peer reviews differ from full peer reviews in two aspects: they are directly forwarded to the Interactive Review Phase and they may be reviewed by the handling Editor alone. It is up to the Editor’s consideration if further reviewers are invited to the review process.

Therefore, following submission, an Editor is immediately invited to take on the manuscript editorial assignment, which encompasses the role of the reviewer, too. Since no Independent Review Report is required, the manuscript enters the Interactive Review Phase immediately.

Interactive Review, manuscript acceptance, and rejection follow the same rules as for full peer reviews.

At the discretion of the Editors, the submitted manuscript may be rejected immediately after review through the Editors, without external review. Manuscripts not complying with international ethical standards will not be considered for publication and will be returned to the authors without scientific peer review.

The review process for manuscripts authored by the members of the Editorial Board and Advisory Board is made automatically inaccessible to these authors in order to safeguard the anonymity and independence of the review process.

To recall, the European Journal of Cultural Management and Policy operates a double blind peer review process, as described above. Authors are responsible for anonymizing their manuscript in order to remain anonymous to the reviewers throughout the peer review process. Since the journal also encourages posting of preprints, however, please note that if authors share their manuscript in preprint form this may compromise their anonymity during peer review.

Authors wishing to appeal an Editorial decision may do so by listing specific and objective reasons in an email to i.verdet@encatc.org. All appeals will be discussed at the next possible Editorial meeting, though it must be pointed out that, due to the careful and conscientious peer-review process, editorial decisions are well supported and rarely amended.