Peer Review Policy

ESIC practices double-blind peer review for research articles. The names of authors of articles are not divulged to peer reviewers, and the names of peer reviewers are not divulged to authors. In most cases, book reviews and review essays are not sent out for peer review. They are commissioned by the editors and receive in-house editing. ESIC also publishes target articles by distinguished senior researchers. Target articles are commissioned and are not peer-reviewed. The editors also commission responses to the target article. The responses to the target articles constitute a kind of public peer review of the target article but are not themselves peer-reviewed.

When articles are submitted to ESIC, one or more of the journal’s editors makes an initial assessment to determine whether the article will be sent out for peer review or, alternatively, returned to its author with an explanation of why it will not be considered further for publication in the journal. The editor or editors might recommend that the author make specific revisions that would put the article into a condition more suitable for it to be sent out for peer review.

If the topic and theoretical orientation of the article are deemed suitable for the journal, and if the article meets an acceptable standard of professional scholarly writing, the editors obtain a minimum of two peer reviews for every article. Most articles sent out for review by ESIC receive more than two evaluations by peer reviewers.

ESIC is an interdisciplinary journal. The editors make a conscientious effort to obtain peer reviews from the most important relevant disciplines. For instance, an article on the social dynamics in a modernist Czech novel might require separate individual peer reviewers with expertise in evolutionary social psychology, literary modernism, Czech literature, and the specific Czech author who is the subject of the article. An article using empirical methods and big data to analyze trends in horror films might require separate individual peer reviewers with expertise in statistical methodology, film history, and horror studies.

When all peer reviews have been obtained, the author receives anonymized versions of the evaluations and an editor’s cover note summarizing the evaluations, reflecting on them, and informing the author about the disposition of the article. An article could be accepted without further revision or accepted provisionally on the condition that certain specific revisions be made. The article could be rejected outright, with no recommendation for resubmission. Or the article could be rejected in its current form but the author invited to consider revising the article and resubmitting it.

If an author chooses to revise and resubmit an article, he or she is requested to specify precisely what revisions have been made in response both to the peer reviews and to the editor’s recommendations for revision. Authors may appeal an editorial decision by writing to the editors and making a case for why the editors should reconsider their decision.