All original research articles published by the journal are peer reviewed. Review and Creative section submissions are reviewed by the Editorial Collective.
The Peer Review process is managed online through OJS.
Editorial Collective Pre-Review
After the submission deadline closes, the Editors conduct an initial pre-review of submissions to determine what manuscripts will be sent to peer review. The Editors then assigns peer reviewers (typically two) for each work selected for review. The review process is blind.
First Peer Review
The first peer review typically takes place in the fall. Peer reviewers will have approximately one month to review manuscripts, after which point comments will be shared with authors. After the first peer review, if authors are invited to revise and resubmit their manuscript for publication, they will have approximately one month to work on revisions and draft a point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments. Once the resubmissions are received by the Editors, both the revised manuscript and response to reviewers’ comments will be sent back to the reviewers for a second review.
As a student journal, we request that reviewers provide comments that are constructive, encouraging, and supportive. Following anthropologist Joseph Dumit’s notes on reading, the Editorial Collective encourages a generous and constructive reading of manuscripts (in lieu of a critical reading).
Second Peer Review
The second peer review typically takes place in the winter. Reviewers will have approximately two weeks for the second review. The primary purpose of the second review is to assess whether authors adequately addressed the reviewers’ concerns raised in the first review. Authors may be asked to work directly with the Editors if the reviewers raise any major concerns in the second review.
Final Editorial Review
After the peer review process is complete, authors invited to publish with the journal will work with the Editors to make final revisions and copy-edit their manuscript for publication, typically by Spring.
Notes for Peer Reviewers
Anonymity & Confidentiality
The review process is blind, meaning that the Editorial Collective does not reveal the identity of authors and reviewers to each other. The authors are to remain anonymous to reviewers and reviewers are to remain anonymous to authors.
Manuscripts received by peer reviewers are to be treated as confidential. Reviewers are not to share or discuss manuscripts under review with anyone other than the Editorial Collective.
Timeline and workload
Reviewers will be provided with a deadline for reviewing the manuscript they receive. If the reviewer is unable to complete the review in the requested timeline they are to notify the Editorial Collective as soon as possible. Reviewers will typically be sent no more than one submission to review.
Declining to review
Reviewers are requested to notify the Editorial Collective if they receive a manuscript where they may have a potential conflict of interest (e.g. they can identify the author based on the manuscript and have a conflict of interest due to a past or present relationship with said author), if they receive a manuscript they do not feel qualified or comfortable reviewing, or if for any other reason they are no longer able to act as a peer reviewer.
If the manuscript being reviewed resembles another author’s published or unpublished work, or if the reviewer suspects plagiarism of any kind, please report these concerns to the Editorial Collective. Contingent Horizons only accepts original work.
If the reviewers are concerned with possible violations of ethical standards in the work they are reviewing, or if they have any concerns whatsoever about the ethics of the work, they are to report these concerns to the Editorial Collective. Contingent Horizons is guided by the American Anthropological Association (AAA) Statement on Ethics.
Reviewers will be asked to recommend whether the manuscript should be accepted (without modification or with revisions), revised and resubmitted (with substantive changes), or rejected.