SELECTION AND PEER REVIEW PROCESS
All articles considered for publication in the ENCATC 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:
- Adaptation to the subject of the journal
- Abstract and keywords
- Conceptual framework and the quality of analysis
- Contributions to the theoretical argument and contribution to knowledge
- Discourse coherence/structure of the paper
- Paper presentation
- Wording and style
- Pertinence and quality of the references
- 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.
LIST OF REVIEWERS 2016
Click here to download the list of reviewers 2016.