Manuscript Review Process

Submissions are reviewed on a rolling basis


A COMPLETE SUBMISSION CONSISTS OF SIX PARTS

1) Manuscript (2,000 to 7,000 words, not including citations/bibliography) without your name or other identifiers included

2) Figures/videos (up to 10, if any) uploaded in separate files to the online submission portal

3) List of figures/videos (if needed) embedded in the text prior to the endnotes

4) Abstract (up to 250 words)

5) Author biography (up to 250 words)

6) Up to 5 appropriate keywords to maximize visibility for online searches and indexing services


STEPS TOWARD PUBLICATION

1) Editors will determine whether the manuscript should a) be sent for peer review, or b) be rejected without peer review for failing to adhere to basic publication criteria. Specialist advice may be consulted prior to manuscript rejection.

2) Double blind peer review. Manuscripts that meet preliminary criteria after an in-depth Editorial analysis, are sent for a formal peer review to two or more reviewers drawn from a volunteer team of expert museum practitioners and academics with experience and knowledge across diverse specialties that span the broad museum sector.

Peer review provides an independent assessment of submitted material, and referees’ feedback often results in refining manuscripts’ structure and argument. It is the Editor’s responsibility to administer an effective manuscript review system that is timely, constructive, and anonymous.

Authors are notified if a manuscript is accepted for peer review. The peer review process can take up to 60 days to complete, though peer reviewers are asked to report their findings within 14-21 days of manuscript receipt, or the manuscript will be reassigned to a different reviewer.

Authors are responsible for making their manuscripts anonymous so peer reviewers are unaware of authors' identities. Editors do know author identities via the online manuscript submission platform.

To help ensure an impartial peer review, Editors attempt to avoid referees who have a possible conflict of interest. Authors may suggest peer reviewers or may ask to exclude individuals who could be tapped as reviewers. Referee and author identities remain anonymous throughout the publication process. Referee reports will never be published with the published paper, nor will the peer reviewers' identities be revealed.

Through conscientious effort by Editors and peer reviewers, The Museum Review promotes progressive and best museum practice.  

3) Editors will make the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript for publication based upon the peer reviewers’ feedback and advice. The Museum Review attempts to balance manuscripts from industry leaders with material from rising leaders on different career paths who bring fresh perspectives and critical opinions to the international museum sector.


THERE ARE FIVE POSSIBLE RESULTS AFTER PEER REVIEW

1) Manuscript (or multi-media submission) is accepted in principle, requiring minor edits, as needed

2) Author is invited to revise the manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
3) Manuscript is rejected with feedback about additional work that will justify a resubmission
4) Manuscript is automatically transferred for consideration to another Rogers Publishing imprint (The Museum Quarterly or The Museum Scholar)
5) Manuscript is rejected outright


AUTHOR 'TO DO' LIST FOR SUBMISSION AND PUBLICATION

1) Authors must make their manuscript text anonymous so peer reviewers will be unaware of your identity. Your name and biography will be included elsewhere within the online submission platform.

2) Authors must utilize the journal's formatting template and must edit manuscripts to conform to the journal's Style Guide upon acceptance for publication.

3) Authors must secure documented approval from all copyright holders (for images, figures, etc.) that the copyrighted material may be reprinted via The Museum Review.