Peer review process
We believe peer review is an important process to support contributors and the editorial team to produce high-quality, relevant, and valuable discussion in the sector. We are committed to a supportive, productive peer review process. There is also the opportunity for community-building through our peer review process. We want to offer more personalised feedback and personal contact. For example, it might be more productive for peer reviewers and contributors to meet in person to discuss a photo essay or video call to discuss a written piece.
Below is a rough outline of our peer review process:
  • The editorial team will assess whether the subject is relevant to Culture Caleidoscoop and the issue themes. If not, the editorial team will reject the contribution outright or offer suggestions.
  • Contributions that move on to the next stage will then be peer reviewed by at least two reviewers in a relevant field. One will likely sit on our Editorial or Advisory Collective. Contributors may be asked for suggestions for peer reviewers.
  • Peer reviewers will offer constructive feedback on contributions. This process will be carefully facilitated by the editorial team to ensure a positive, fair, and constructive process. Additional feedback can be provided via Track Changes in a Word document, via an online video call, email, or another channel, depending on the contributor’s and peer reviewers’ preferences and the most suitable method for the type of contribution.

    Feedback will address the contribution’s relevance to Culture Caleidoscoop; potential areas for improvement, including suggestions for development or further reading or research, and how to further build on what works well in the contribution. 

    Peer reviewers will also make suggestions (if needed) for how to better align the contribution with Culture Caleidoscoop’s values as well as provide feedback on how to make contributions clearer and more accessible or relevant for readers.

    Peer reviewers will be guided to offer feedback around specific criteria dependent on the type of contribution. See the contributor guidelines for more information on expectations around different content.

    Peer reviewers and contributors will also be invited to record or summarise some of this process so this discussion and learning can be shared alongside the final contribution.
  • Contributors will be expected to take this feedback and strengthen their contributions. Contributors may contact the editorial team for support.
  • Once the contributions have been adjusted based on feedback, contributions will be copyedited for clarity, and contributors will have another chance to approve any changes.
Opportunity for non-open peer review process:
While we encourage a more personal and open peer-review process, we understand that a double-blind process may be preferable in some cases. For a double-blind peer review process, the contribution will be given to peer reviewers without any identifying information (e.g. the contributor’s name and any other identifying information in the contribution will be removed), and the contributor won’t know who their peer reviewers are. 
When you submit your contribution, please explain if you have any preferences regarding peer-review (e.g., if you think a double-blind peer review is necessary or if you prefer a video call to discuss feedback). We will do our best to accommodate your wishes.

Unless requested when you submit a proposal or contribution, we will not treat your contribution as a piece to be blind reviewed.
All details about a submitted contribution (accepted or not) will remain confidential. Feedback and correspondence relating to the peer-review process will not be shared with anyone outside of the editorial team, contributor(s), and peer reviewers. 
Ongoing learning:
We will continue to develop our peer-review process to benefit our contributors and readers as much as possible and to learn as we go through this process.