Peer Review

The SUP Editorial Board has developed a rigorous peer review process to ensure that all content published by SUP meets the highest academic standards. A copy of the full Peer Review Policy & Procedure can be found here: SUP Peer Review Policy & Procedure

Peer Review Overview

Proposals

  1. Proposals are checked by SUP staff to ensure that they are in scope (i.e. monographs or edited collections from researchers at a participating institution) and are then reviewed by our Editorial Board.

  2. Proposals that are accepted by the Editorial Board will then be sent out for external peer review. SUP will seek at least two reviews at the proposal stage. The peer review process will be partly anonymous in that reviewers will know the identity of the author, but the identity of the reviewer will not be disclosed to the author.

  3. Proposal reviews will be requested within four weeks of receipt. Authors will be advised of the anticipated timescale for peer review on submission and will be kept informed on progress.

  4. Authors will receive copies of peer review reports and will be invited to provide a formal response.

  5. Peer reviewer reports and author responses will be forwarded to the Editorial Board for consideration. The Editorial Board currently meet quarterly in February, May, August and November. SUP may make a decision on the basis of the reports received or seek further review.

  6. Publishing decisions will be made by majority rule of the Editorial Board. The Chair will hold the casting vote.

  7. Contracts will be agreed when a proposal is accepted.

We aim to provide a decision in a timely manner. The entire process should take around 12-14 weeks, however this depends on availability of reviewers, the outcome of peer review reports and the scheduling of Editorial Board meetings.

Manuscripts

  1. Once the full manuscript is submitted it will be sent out to a reviewer for a final report. A report will be requested within eight weeks. If substantial changes are required at this stage, subsequent reviews may be requested once revisions have been made.

  2. If suggested changes are minor, no further external review is required and the manuscript will progress through the production workflows.

Please see the full Peer Review Policy & Procedure for more details: SUP Peer Review Policy & Procedure

SUP used guidance from the Best Practices for Peer Review from the Association of University Presses (AUP) to shape the peer review policy.

Peer Review Guidelines

Peer review is central to our publication process. We depend on an extended network of peer reviewers offering their time and expertise to support our Editorial Board in reaching publication decisions. In recognition of the value we place on this input, SUP offers peer reviewers an honorarium for proposal and full manuscript reviews.

Ethics and standards 

The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the quality of submissions and determine suitability for publication with SUP. The SUP Peer Review Policy & Procedure document sets out our approach to peer review in more detail.  

SUP is committed to delivering a supportive and collaborative experience for authors. Professional and respectful communication throughout the peer review process is an essential part of our approach. Peer review reports should provide constructive and critical comments that authors can use to improve their study. 

SUP adheres to high ethical standards throughout the publication process. We follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines to embed ethical practices in our internal workflows. Peer reviewers must abide by the COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. 

Become an SUP Peer Reviewer

If you would like to volunteer as a reviewer for SUP then please register your details using this short form. Your details will be added to a list of potential peer reviewers and we will use your contact details to invite you to review suitable proposals.