Guidelines on Peer Review
This document sets out Monash University Publishing’s policies and procedures regarding the refereeing of manuscripts, submitted for publication, in a process of peer review.
Monash University Publishing aspires to publish scholarly works that are of the very highest standards in their respective fields. As such, Monash University Publishing insists on a rigorous process of peer review.
All book manuscripts submitted for publication are refereed by a minimum of two referees who are acknowledged experts in the particular field, at least one of whom is external to Monash University. In the case of conflicting referee reports, further expert opinion is sought.
Referees should comment on:
how significant a work is in its field.
the originality of the central arguments.
the soundness of the methodology employed.
the clarity of argument and expression.
the appropriateness of the writing style.
the depth and appropriateness of the sources consulted.
Referees should make a recommendation, based on a consideration of these criteria, to:
accept the work with no significant revisions.
accept the work with minor revisions.
request that the work be resubmitted with major revisions.
reject the work.
In relation to book proposals, this process of peer review is carried out by either the Faculty Editorial Boards or Monash University Publishing. If the proposed title originates from a faculty that is represented by a Board, the Board will supply Monash University Publishing with a Proposal Evaluation Form and copies of referee reports prior to publication. For other titles, Monash University Publishing staff will carry out the process with assistance from the Monash University Publishing Advisory Committee.
The refereeing processes and policies of the journals published by Monash University Publishing are decided upon and overseen by the journal editors and / or the associations of which they are part. Scholarly articles are refereed in a double-blind process.