 |
|
|
Review Process Enculturation is a blind peer-reviewed journal. Once the initial submissions are collected for an issue, they are evenly distributed to editorial board members who review the submissions based on the following format:
___1. The submission is significant and sound, falls within the scope of Enculturation, and should be published with only minor revisions. ___2. The submission is sound but too long for Enculturation's format. Should be included after cuts and revisions have been made. ___3. The submission is basically significant and sound but requires rewriting to make it a solid publishable contribution. ___4. The submission requires major rewriting and it should be reviewed again after a revised draft has been received. ___5. The submission is sound but does not fall within the scope of Enculturation and should not be included. ___6. The submission does not exhibit a broad enough understanding of the field. ___7. The submission does not warrant further consideration by Enculturation. Comments to the Editor(s): Comments to the Author (on a separate
sheet):
Each submission receives 2 to 3 blind reviews from different board members, who then submit their responses to the editors. Once these reviews have been examined, the editors select the pieces they feel warrant inclusion in the issue, inform the authors of their decisions (providing the author with copies of each blind review), and then assign each accepted author to a specific board member (who also receives the blind reviews). The authors are asked to make any needed revisions and their work is passed on to the assigned board member to re-review. Once the board member is confident about the revisions, s/he submits the piece to the editor(s) to be included in the issue. We feel this review process will ensure the best quality submissions for the journal, and provide the best support to those who submit projects. See the current editorial board
for
specific areas of interest.
|