Peer Review at Heidelberg University Publishing

All submissions are initially evaluated by the editors and presented to the advisory board. Manuscripts that meet the acceptance criteria then move forward to peer review. Our double-blind peer review process is based on the guidelines mentioned below. Following review, further revisions may be required of the author before a final decision can be made. The advisory board’s final decision is based on both the work itself and the reviewers’ reports. Finally, the manuscript enters the copyediting phase, after which it is proofed and then formatted into its final version.

Reviewer Guidelines

Heidelberg University Publishing stands for the publication of high-quality, open access academic texts. In order to ensure compliance with our quality standards, we must rely on expert advice. The following points, which should be discussed in the reviewer’s final report, are particularly important when assessing submitted manuscripts:

  • Factual relevance and timeliness of the topic
  • Originality of the approach
  • Transparency of the procedures, methods, and results (if applicable)
  • Traceability of results (if applicable)
  • Structural coherence and logical progression within the work
  • Linguistic quality in terms of spelling, grammar, and appropriate style/register

Evaluators are asked to complete a review form, which is sent to them at the time they agree to review the manuscript. The review form consists of three parts, which together comprise the reviewer’s final report: 1) a free-form text box, in which reviewers can assess the overall quality of the manuscript and, if necessary, its relevance and applicability to a particular series, 2) a five-point assessment scale, and 3) a final recommendation. The text portion of the report should be 1-2 pages (1.5 spacing) in length.

Given the intended target group, Campus Media publications are not necessarily peer reviewed.