Helsinki University Press

Peer review procedure

All publications of HUP undergo a rigorous peer review process before the publication decision is made. All journals and books are sent for external peer review to at least two experts selected by HUP.

The HUP review process is double-blind. Each referee receives an anonymous manuscript for review, and the identity of the referees is not revealed to the author(s). Exceptions may be made by mutual prior agreement. For journals, HUP also provides option of open peer review – if required, at the discretion of the editorial team.

The duty of the referee is to provide a statement on the manuscript’s suitability for publication by choosing from the following options:

the manuscript can be published as it is;
the manuscript can be published if certain proposed changes are made;
the referee cannot recommend publication of the manuscript. HUP forwards the referee statements to the author(s) of the manuscript.

At this point, recommendations for changes to the manuscript are usually made.

Books

Helsinki University Press ensures that all book publications are reviewed. Our editorial team and Academic Board reviews all book proposals that are submitted to the press. After discussion with the authors (/book editors) the editorial team and Academic Board will make a decision on whether revisions to the proposal are required or whether the proposal can be accepted or rejected.

All books also have their full text thoroughly peer reviewed by at least two external reviewers. Experts within the subject area are asked to comment on:

the strength of the methodology and the analysis of data,
whether conclusions are supported by sufficient evidence/data,
whether the content is well structured,
and if the submission includes up-to-date information on the subject and adequate referencing.

After review feedback is received the publishing manager will collate the feedback and ask the authors (/ book editors) for relevant revisions.

If revisions are requested, then these must be completed prior to the book being editorially accepted for publication. If major revisions have been requested then the re-submitted book may be sent out for subsequent rounds of review. The Academic Board will make the final publication decisions based on the peer review reports.

Journals

All articles submitted to a Helsinki University Press journal are initially assessed by an Editor, who decides whether or not the article fits the scope of the journal and is suitable for peer-review.

Submissions considered suitable for peer-review are assigned to independent experts, who are asked to assess the article for clarity, validity, and sound methodology.

Based on the reviewer reports the editor will make a decision to ask for revisions, accept or reject the submission. If conflicting review feedback is provided, or if the feedback is unclear, then the editor will engage with the reviewers to further discuss the submission and the suggested editorial decision. Overall editorial responsibility rests with the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, who is supported by an expert, international Editorial Board.

Helsinki University Press journals can operate double-blind, single blind, or open peer-review processes. Journals also have the option of releasing their peer-review comments alongside publications, either in an anonymised or open format. Whilst the press encourages open processes, journals are able to choose their preferred review option.

We aim to make the review process as efficient as possible, whilst maintaining a high quality of reviewer feedback. In most cases, the review period is expected to take around six weeks. Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal.

Peer Review Guidelines

All publications of Helsinki University Press (HUP) undergo a peer review process before the publication decision is made. Manuscripts are sent for peer review to at least two experts selected by HUP.

The duty of the referee is to provide a statement on the manuscript’s suitability for publication by choosing from the following options:

(1) the manuscript can be published as it is;
(2) the manuscript can be published if certain proposed changes are made;
(3) the referee cannot recommend publication of the manuscript.

HUP forwards the referee statements to the author(s) of the manuscript. At this point, recommendations for changes to the manuscript are usually made.

In agreeing to make a review, the experts called upon to act as referees must agree to the following principles:

The purpose of the review is to evaluate the scholarly quality of the manuscript and to help the publisher to decide on the fate of a manuscript that has been offered for publication. The review statement is also intended to help the author(s), and this is why HUP hopes that it will include concrete suggestions for improvement.

The evaluation should address questions such as these:

Is the text competent from a scholarly point of view
Does it provide new information or data on the field?
Does the work follow theories or methods that are relevant to the field?
Is the text a reasonable and meaningful addition to scholarly discussions and does it consider pertinent matters?
Does it bring new perspectives to the debate?
What is the target audience? Will the manuscript only be understood by researchers who are well versed in the field, or can it also be used by representatives of related fields?
Could it be interesting for academics of other disciplines?
Is it understandable for students of the discipline?
Is the author familiar with the essential literature in the field?
Does the text fulfil the promises made in the introduction?
Are clear objectives set for the text and does the author adhere to them?
Does the author justify claims made in the text? Does the content of the text support the conclusions drawn?
Is the structure of the manuscript clear and balanced, and is the content presented fluently and intelligibly?
Does the manuscript form a cohesive and reasoned whole whose parts support each other?
Do the titles and subtitles correspond to the content?
Are matters presented in a sensible order and to the extent and level of detail demanded by their importance?
Are there significant deficiencies in the text, or should certain elements be cut back or condensed?
What are the most crucial corrections that must be made to the manuscript?
If there are illustrations, what is the relationship between text and figures?
If there are no illustrations or figures, should they be added for the sake of informativeness? If so, what kind?

If a referee considers the sources of the manuscript or their use to be lacking, he/she should help the author(s) by suggesting essential literature for reference. What fundamental sources of information are missing from the manuscript? Who has said the same thing previously?

If the manuscript repeats prior published materials to a great extent, the publisher must be made aware of this. Any suspicions of plagiarism or deficiencies in attribution of quotations or sources must be brought to the publisher’s attention.

Review statements should be appropriate, encouraging and as thorough as possible. A clear distinction should be made between differences of opinion and scholarly deficiencies: claims made by the manuscript which are well presented and justified but divergent from the referee’s own views are not the same as defects related to poor argumentation, methodology or use of sources. Referees should consider what kind of feedback they themselves would like to receive on their own work.

HUP agrees a deadline for the peer reviews with the expert referees. Referees must inform HUP as early as possible of any delays in the schedule.

All manuscripts and related materials are protected by copyright. Manuscripts under review are confidential, and all related files and printouts must be handled as such. The referees must destroy the related files and printouts after the review process. Referees must make a non-disclosure agreement. Manuscripts may not be discussed with or shown to third parties unless it is absolutely necessary and this is agreed in advance with the publisher. The contents of unpublished manuscripts may not be utilised without permission. A referee may mention, for example on a CV, having acted as a peer reviewer for Helsinki University Press, but without revealing the manuscripts themselves.

No compensation is given for peer review tasks, but they are regarded as an academic merit. The purpose of peer reviewing is to ensure the high academic standard of publications. Reviewing is a highly regarded position of trust that serves the academic community as a whole.

Any possible conflicts of interest should be taken into account in the review process. If a consulted expert has a conflict of interest related to the content or author(s) of a manuscript, or is in other ways involved with the matter, HUP must be informed.