The MIT Press

These are too varied to have a single policy, below is an example.

Design Issues and Peer Review
The purpose of this guidance is to brief authors on the process through which their manuscripts will be reviewed for publication in Design Issues and to support our peer reviewers in meeting the Editorial Board’s expectations.

The Value of Peer Review
For Design Issues the peer review process has four specific benefits among others. It helps to: (1) ensure the publication of high quality research, (2) validate the integrity and trustworthiness of the scholarly record, (3) assist in the further development of an author’s manuscript, and (4) build the knowledge base that helps define a scholarly community. In of itself, peer review is a continuous process that helps advance the integrity and quality of published work so that it contributes to the pool of knowledge underpinning design research. The mission of Design Issues aligns with these aims.

The Principles of Peer Review
Excellence Manuscripts selected for publication will demonstrate the highest standards of excellence as assessed by experts in the field.
Impartiality Expert peer reviewers will be selected against clear criteria and required to undertake their work without bias or conflict of interest. All manuscripts submitted to Design Issues will be treated equally regardless of their origin or identity of the authors.
Transparency All manuscripts will be considered against the review criteria set out for Design Issues (see below). All authors will receive adequate feedback on their proposals to which they may respond.
Efficiency The review process at Design Issues has evolved to provide robust assessments within the shortest timescales possible and without unnecessarily overloading peer reviewers.
Confidentiality Data and intellectual property will be treated confidentially by all persons or agencies involved in the processes of peer review undertaken on behalf of Design Issues.
The Criteria for Peer Review
All manuscripts received by Design Issues will go before the Editorial Board and there will be no desk rejections prior to their consideration. In reading manuscripts the Editorial Board will apply two sets of criteria:

Threshold criteria
Does the manuscript fall within the editorial scope of Design Issues? Is the use of academic English sufficient to merit publication?
Quality criteria
The originality of the author’s argument The clarity and completeness of the argument (e.g., does the author take into account the relevant literature?)
The persuasiveness of the author’s conclusions (e.g., is the method and evidence provided by the author rigorous and adequate?)
The accessibility of the author’s writing style
The Stages of Peer Review
The full process of peer review has three stages through which some, but not all, manuscripts will progress: Stage one—new submissions; Stage two—peer reviewer feedback; Stage three—revised manuscripts. The Design Issues Editorial Board meets monthly to fully discuss and progress each manuscript through each of these three stages.

Stage One
For each new proposal the Board will make one of the following decisions:

If the editors judge that a manuscript does not meet the threshold criteria (see above), it will receive no further consideration from the Board and be declined.
If a manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements for publication (where, for example, it exceeds the maximum word limit set out for Design Issues or does not meet its citation or bibliographic requirements) but has merits, the author[s] may be first offered an opportunity to make revisions before consideration.
If the editors judge that a manuscript does not sufficiently meet the quality criteria for it to be sent out to peer review, it will be readily declined. If the editors judge that a manuscript does meet the quality criteria, it will be sent out to peer reviewers for their independent assessment. If the editors conclude that all aspects of a manuscript are of such a high quality of excellence that it should be put into the public domain without further delay, it will be directly accepted for publication.

Stage Two
At this stage the Editorial Board will consider feedback and advice from peer reviewers (who will have been asked to assess manuscripts against the quality criteria [see above]) and then make one of the following decisions:

Publish as is
Publish with minor revisions
Revise & Resubmit
Decline

Where the Editorial Board decides that the author(s) should have an opportunity to consider either minor or major revisions, appropriate guidance will be given by an Editorial Board member who has been identified to liaise with the author(s). This guidance may include a synopsis of key points made by the Editorial Board after considering the peer reviewer’s feedback or may include the reviewer’s observations in full (whichever is most helpful to the author[s]).

Stage Three
At this stage the Editorial Board will decide either to:

Publish
Decline
If the Board decides to decline a manuscript, it will provide the author(s) with an adequate explanation for the reasoning behind its decision. Beyond this the Editorial Board’s decision is final and there is no process for appeal.

The Process of Peer Review
The Editorial Board alone is responsible for deciding which manuscripts are to be published in Design Issues after taking account of advice and feedback from independent experts in the field.

The process of peer review, as operated by Design Issues, is double blind (i.e., neither the author(s) nor the peer reviewer(s) will know each other’s identity at any stage of the process).

The Editorial Board will identify peer reviewers from its international network of experts and match their expertise to the substance of the research under review.

Peer review is a confidential process between the editors, author(s), and reviewer(s) and all parties will respect this confidentiality.

Peer reviewers are required to review manuscripts personally and not to pass this responsibility onto another person without the Journal’s specific knowledge and agreement.

No information gathered through the review process will be used to advantage or disadvantage any other researcher or research.

All communications and interactions between the reviewer(s) and the author(s) will be managed through the Editorial Board.

A peer review will be owned by its author; and in submitting peer review assessments, reviewers grant the Journal’s Editorial Board the right to make their blinded peer reviewer comments available to the author(s) should the Board decide to do so.

Becoming a Peer Reviewer for Design Issues Many authors benefit from the process of peer review. Their experience is an invaluable resource to the continued health of the design research community. Those authors wishing to become a peer reviewer for Design Issues should send their CV to the Journal’s Managing Editor Gail Papay for consideration by the Editorial Board: gail.papay@case.edu