IBIRC Press · Scholarly publishing
Peer review
Independent assessment of the argument, evidence and scholarly contribution.
Review standard
Our proposed Press standard is at least two independent external expert reports on the complete research manuscript before a final acceptance decision. This is a proposed IBIRC Press policy, not a statement that Clarivate mandates a particular number of reviewers.
Reviewer selection and confidentiality
The handling editor will assess subject and methodological expertise and request conflict-of-interest declarations. Recent close collaborators, supervisors, personal associates or others unable to provide independent judgement should not review the work. Reviewers must protect confidential material and must not upload manuscripts to external AI services without explicit authorisation.
The proposed default is single-anonymised review: reviewers know the author’s identity, while their identities are withheld from the author. Any different model will be agreed and explained before review. Absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed in a small specialist field.
Assessment and decision
Reports should address originality, research methods, quality of evidence, accuracy, citations, coherence, language and suitability for the intended readership. Authors will receive substantive feedback and a request for a documented response. Major revisions may require further external assessment. Editors may seek another independent opinion when reports conflict.
Possible decisions are rejection, revision and resubmission, acceptance subject to specified corrections, or acceptance. Favourable reports do not oblige the editor to accept a manuscript.
Edited books and connected authors
Every research chapter should receive external assessment, alongside evaluation of the collection as a whole. Editors must document coverage and unresolved issues. Work by trustees, editors, staff or their close collaborators must be handled by an unconflicted editor, with the interested person excluded from the decision.
Records and appeals
The Press should retain dated invitations, declarations, reports, author responses and decision records with controlled access. An appeal should identify a procedural error or material factual issue; an editor uninvolved in the original decision should assess it. Publication timing cannot be guaranteed before review is complete.
Ethics, concerns & appealsBook review and Centre reports
The Centre’s internal review of reports and educational outputs is distinct from the intended external review of Press books. An internally reviewed Centre report is not automatically a peer-reviewed Press book.
Documenting editorial decisions
The proposed book workflow comprises scope and originality screening, conflict checks, independent external assessment, author revision and response, and a reasoned final decision by an unconflicted editor. Edited volumes would undergo chapter assessment and review of overall scholarly coherence. Confidential reports, responses and decisions would be retained with appropriate access controls.
Books involving a Press editor, trustee or Centre affiliate would require independent editorial handling. Such authors must not select their own reviewers or make the acceptance decision. No completed review is claimed for the planned volumes.