|
|
|
|
 |
| |
|
- All manuscripts that aim to be published under the Copenhagen Business School Press brand, must be presented to the chief peer reviewer before being accepted for publication, irrespective of whether they are channeled through CBS, Samfundslitteratur, or presented directly to the chief peer reviewer.
- The chief peer reviewer screens the manuscript. He has the discretion to decline the manuscript or decide to subject the manuscript to the peer review process. He might, in borderline cases, decide to give advice on manuscript improvements and suggest resubmission for potential peer review.
- The peer reviewer appointed by the chief peer reviewer must be a person with high academic standing in the subject matter of the manuscript, and must have sufficient personal and professional distance from the author(s).
- The peer reviewer(s) will be asked to submit a written review of the manuscript to the chief peer reviewer following a paradigm, the most recent version of which is available on CBS Press homepage.
- The reviewer(s) must be aware of the distinction between reviewing an article for a journal publication and reviewing a book manuscript. In both cases, the submission must fulfill a number of scientific criteria, which could be (non-exclusively) based on theoretical considerations, methodological strengths, determination of the quality of the writing, whether the work presents new discoveries, and so forth. In both cases, the review process often leads to a number of suggestions from the reviewers, with a conclusion such as ‘revise and resubmit’, which could continue for several rounds. In the case of a book manuscript, there must, however, be a little more ‘room’ for the author to develop his/hers ideas.
- Added to the review paradigm the chief peer reviewer might add a few manuscript specific comments.
| Title: |
| Author(s): |
| 1. Does this manuscript meet a minimum standard for legitimate and sound scholarship? |
| 2. Is the manuscript clear in the approach to relevant theories, and in the application of methodology and analysis? |
| 3. Does the manuscript present findings that are an addition to current knowledge and, as such, of interest to an existing audience? |
| 4. Is the manuscript well written (e.g., structure, language, editing, etc.)? |
| 5. Are there suggestions for improvements/changes that you would expect as a precondition for publishing with CBS Press? |
| 6. Overall conclusion? |
| 7. Reviewer: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
