Peer Review

All UTS ePRESS publications are peer reviewed by experts and scholars in the relevant field or discipline.

UTS ePRESS publications use double blind peer review (where at least two expert reviewers are used and the reviewers and author are anonymous). Alternative peer review processes (such as single blind review or editorial group review) may be used where this is an accepted practice within a particular publication’s discipline or field of research and practice. The peer review process must be objective, fair and thorough.

UTS ePRESS books are peer reviewed by at least two experts and scholars in the relevant field or discipline, and their critique informs further critical development of the work before final publication.

UTS ePRESS journals contain a clear statement of the peer review processes on the journal’s webpage, and clearly indicate within individual issues if any section or article deviates from these stated practices.

Peer reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest and, unless exceptional circumstances prevail, will decline further involvement where a conflict occurs. Conflicts of interest can include a direct knowledge of, or relationship with, a potential author, or an overlap in roles between editor, reviewer and author.

Journal Editors will consider conflicts of interest when a manuscript is submitted by a member of their editorial team or editorial advisory board. In such cases a co-editor or an external trusted expert will be asked to act as editor for that article and oversee the peer review process.