IFJP Guide for Reviewers

Thank you for agreeing to review for IFJP ! Your role in the editing process is invaluable. We understand the time constraints and uncompensated academic labour during review processes, and we and our authors are ever so grateful for your insights.

We are committed to a stimulating and thoughtful review process for our authors no matter the final outcome. We consider the IFJP as a process-oriented space, that is, we see the review and editing process, and the conversations that ensue, as themselves an integral part of what it means to do feminist publishing. We hope you will find the suggestions below a helpful guide to writing your review.

Confidential Comments for the Editors:

Please be frank: from the manuscript you have read, does it look like the author is well positioned to make the suggested revisions? If you do not think so, then state that clearly here and what your specific concerns are. Your comments to the author can be more moderated. The author will not see this information unless you ALSO put it in the comments for the author. It is fine to share the “Confidential Comments for the Editors” in the “Comments to the Author” section.

If you have any comments about the research ethics or of unacknowledged facilitating researchers, do point them out to us.

Comments to the Author:

Position your review as an honest, critical, and supportive analysis of the current state and future potential of the piece. The more explicit the review is about strengths and weaknesses, the more helpful it will be to the author and the editorial process. Your assessment should clearly signal whether you believe the piece could eventually be published in IFJP , even if this version is not ready.

Offer positive points first. Establish the value of the piece – it might help to restate the author’s main argument or thesis, and to say to which field/s it contributes. Is it offering a new element of this field, or extending current knowledge? Does it bring new insights, sources, empirics, conceptual thinking and/or connections to light?

In particular, encourage the author to foreground whatever new/innovative perspectives/ methodologies they are presenting. And also why and how they contribute significantly to the theoretical literature or a better understanding of the field of inquiry.

We at IFJP take research ethics seriously, hence please pay attention to the methodology and what kind of collaborations have been forged, ethical approval sought. If it is not clear from the piece, do ask the authors about their research practices and collaborations, involvement of facilitating researchers (if any), and whether they have been sufficiently and appropriately acknowledged.

When offering criticism, be constructive in your comments. Clarify what you think the author is trying to do but perhaps does not do as well as they might. Offer advice for this paper, on the merit of its argument, rather than zeroing in on what is missing or offering a new argument. This gives the author some “thinking space” to consider whether they are getting their central point/s across (or whether they mean something else entirely).

Guide the author to specific works of relevant literature. If it seems as if more reflection or analysis is needed on particular theoretical, conceptual, or empirical/historical elements, specify these and some key texts of those fields if they are known to you.

Be as specific as possible. It is very helpful to the author to cite individual page numbers when offering suggestions, including on any aspects of written expression that could be improved. If you decide to annotate the piece directly, be sure to make your comments anonymous.

Additional context to consider:

While the process is anonymous, or especially so, please consider how the author might be coming from a significantly different academic context than your own, for example, outside the Anglophone, Global North academic institutions or cultural background, and thus would be operating in a different writing and research environment. What do you need to know to better appreciate their insights, or offer them useful comments? What would others need to know?

IFJP is also trying to publish a wider range of styles of research articles and essays and is not wedded to a standard format. Some articles may not need an extended literature review; others may be able to do without in-depth theoretical and methodological discussions; and yet others may focus on an argument and forgo an empirical component as defined in traditional social sciences. We view essays that debate key issues, forge new theoretical pathways, as well as provide rich perspectives and analyses from the field and sites of our lives to all be valuable research articles for the IFJP readership.