Peer review is a judgement on another researcher’s work, and it can shape a career. Brieflands treats it as the central responsibility of running a journal. This page sets out how review works across all Brieflands journals: who reviews, what is masked from whom, what reviewers commit to, and what authors can expect.
Scope
All submitted manuscripts, external review and editorial approval
Reviewers per manuscript
At least three independent reviewers
Masking
Reviewers do not see author identities; associate editors do
Typical decision time
Usually 2–3 months from submission
How review works
Every submission follows the same route. The diagram further down shows the same process visually.
Two types of review
Brieflands journals operate two models.
Double-anonymised (double-blind)
Neither the reviewer nor the author knows the other. The reviewer receives a blinded PDF and sees only the text of the manuscript, without names or affiliations.
Open peer review
Readers and authors can see and read the reviewers’ comments. Brieflands considers published review reports a route to a more transparent environment, while recognising that not every reviewer wishes to post comments.
Open peer review in detail
Open peer review makes the details of the whole review process public — reviewer, associate editor and editor-in-chief comments — where the editor-in-chief, the authors and the reviewers all agree to it.
Signed reviewers
These reviewers agree to have their names and affiliations shown on the public journal website alongside their comments.
Anonymous reviewers
These reviewers stay anonymous to the public and are known only to the editor-in-chief. Only their comments appear publicly.
Brieflands gives the following reasons for opening the process:
- Greater transparency, and more constructive, more tactful comments — which raises the quality of reviews
- Stronger motivation for everyone involved in the process
- Greater author satisfaction, and more honesty between authors and reviewers
- Educational value for authors and for students new to the field
- It discourages reviewers from pursuing their own agendas, and makes reviewer conflicts of interest easier to detect
What reviewers commit to
Every Brieflands reviewer agrees to these terms.
- Keep all information about a manuscript confidential and treat it as privileged.
- Review objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. Any personal knowledge of the authors must not affect comments or decisions.
- Express views clearly, with supporting argument, in roughly 500 to 1,000 words.
- Identify relevant published work the authors have not cited.
- Draw the editor-in-chief’s attention to any substantial similarity or overlap with other published articles.
- Decline to review where a conflict of interest exists — competitive, collaborative or any other relationship with the authors, companies or institutions connected to the work.
Becoming a reviewer
To review for a Brieflands journal, send a request with your CV through the support portal. The journal’s editorial board will review it and be in contact. Reviewers can obtain an online validated certificate for completed work.
Related pages