Peer Review

If you need a PDF version of this guideline, please click here. Please note that this will only work for those who has Nexus365. Alternatively, you can email us at journal@hmc.ox.ac.uk to request for a word document version of this guideline. Thank you.

---------------------------------------------------

1. Introduction 

The quality, credibility, and scholarly standing of the Harris Manchester College Journal (HMCJ, hereafter as) depend substantially upon the expertise, judgement, and generosity of its reviewers. Peer review is central to maintaining academic standards, supporting authors in the development of their work, and ensuring that published material makes a substantive contribution to scholarly discourse. 

The Journal is committed to a review process that is rigorous, fair, constructive, collegial, and conducted in accordance with recognised principles of research integrity and responsible scholarly publishing. 

2. Role of the Reviewer 

Reviewers are asked to provide an independent expert assessment of the scholarly merit and suitability of a submission for publication in the Journal. The purpose of review is not merely to recommend acceptance or rejection, but to assist the editors in making an informed decision and, where appropriate, to help the author strengthen the manuscript. 

Reviewers are therefore asked to evaluate the submission carefully, provide clear reasons for their judgements, and offer comments that are both intellectually serious and constructive in tone. 

3. Nature of the Review Process 

The Journal operates a double-anonymised peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another. Reviewers should not seek to identify the author, and any suspicion regarding authorship should not affect the impartiality of the review. 

Reviews are submitted through the Journal's OJS portal at hmcj.shox.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/HMCJ/login. Reviewers will receive an invitation by email with a link to access the manuscript and upload their review report. Where, owing to subject matter or context, anonymisation is imperfect or impracticable, reviewers are nonetheless expected to assess the work solely on its scholarly merits. 

4. Before Accepting a Review Invitation 

Before agreeing to review, reviewers should consider whether they are able to undertake the review appropriately and within the requested timeframe. Reviewers should decline the invitation if: 

  • the submission falls outside their area of expertise; 
  • they are unable to complete the review within four weeks of accepting the invitation; 
  • they have a conflict of interest that may affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their judgement. 

If a reviewer declines an invitation, it is often helpful, where possible, to suggest alternative reviewers with suitable expertise. 

5. Conflicts of Interest 

Reviewers must declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest promptly to the editorial team. Conflicts may arise, for example, through: 

  • personal or professional relationships with the author; 
  • current or recent research collaboration; 
  • shared institutional affiliation; 
  • supervisory or examinational relationships; 
  • financial, political, or ideological interests connected to the subject matter; 
  • strong prior involvement in disputes directly related to the manuscript's argument or claims. 

Where any such conflict exists, the reviewer should normally decline the invitation unless the editor determines otherwise. 

6. Confidentiality 

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not: 

  • share the manuscript with others without the editor's express permission; 
  • discuss the submission with colleagues or students without authorisation; 
  • use ideas, data, arguments, or materials from the manuscript for personal advantage; 
  • cite or refer to the manuscript prior to publication. 

If a reviewer believes it would be beneficial to consult a colleague on a limited and specific point, prior approval must first be obtained from the editor. 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE ON AI TOOLS:  AI tools must not be used to process, summarise, or generate content for review reports. Submitting a manuscript to an AI tool for analysis constitutes a breach of confidentiality. Reviewers may use AI tools for copy-editing their own prose in the review report, but the intellectual substance of the review must be the reviewer's own work. 

7. Matters Reviewers Are Asked to Assess 

Reviewers should assess the submission in light of the standards appropriate to its discipline, method, genre, and intended contribution. Depending on the nature of the submission, the following matters should ordinarily be considered. 

7.1 Originality and Contribution 

  • Does the manuscript make an original, significant, or worthwhile scholarly contribution? 
  • Does it advance understanding, interpretation, debate, or knowledge in its field? 

7.2 Relevance and Suitability 

  • Is the manuscript appropriate to the aims and scope of the Journal? 
  • Is it likely to be of interest to the Journal's readership? 

7.3 Argument and Analysis 

  • Is the central argument clear, coherent, and persuasive? 
  • Are the claims proportionate to the evidence presented? 
  • Are conclusions justified and intellectually defensible? 

7.4 Engagement with Scholarship 

  • Does the manuscript demonstrate appropriate engagement with relevant literature and current scholarship? 
  • Are there important omissions in the scholarship cited? 
  • Does the manuscript situate itself adequately within the field? 

7.5 Evidence and Method 

  • Is the evidence used appropriately and critically? 
  • Is the methodology, interpretive framework, or analytical approach sound and clearly applied? 
  • Where relevant, are sources used accurately and responsibly? 

7.6 Structure and Presentation 

  • Is the manuscript well organised and clearly written? 
  • Is the standard of academic expression suitable for publication? 
  • Are notes, references, figures, tables, and appendices presented appropriately? 

7.7 Scholarly and Ethical Integrity 

  • Are there any indications of plagiarism, unattributed borrowing, duplicate submission, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or other forms of misconduct? 
  • Are any permissions, ethical approvals, or acknowledgements required and, if so, appropriately addressed? 

NOTE ON AI-GENERATED CONTENT:  AI-generated content: the Journal permits AI tools for copy-editing purposes only. If a reviewer notices systematic use of AI-generated vocabulary patterns (e.g. overuse of 'illuminate', 'foreground', 'underscore', 'nuanced', 'multifaceted', 'delve into'), an absence of specific authorial voice, or citations that appear hallucinated, this should be noted in the review report. Reviewers should not make direct accusations but should flag the concern clearly so the editor can investigate. 

8. Framing the Review Report 

Review reports should be submitted through the OJS portal within four weeks of accepting the invitation. Reports should be clear, evidence-based, and constructive. Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between major issues affecting the manuscript's suitability for publication and minor points of detail, presentation, or style. 

A helpful review will ordinarily include the following elements: 

Section 

Guidance 

Summary 

A brief summary (three to five sentences) of the manuscript's subject and argument, demonstrating that you have read and understood the submission. 

Overall assessment 

Your overall view of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses. 

Major issues 

Comments on substantive scholarly matters that must be addressed before publication can be considered: weaknesses in argument, insufficient engagement with scholarship, evidential or methodological deficiencies, structural problems, or claims requiring significant qualification. 

Minor issues 

Specific revision requests: clarification of wording, additional citations, modest structural improvements, correction of errors in references, grammar, or formatting. 

Recommendation 

Your recommended decision (see Section 9). 

Optional: note on AI 

If you have concerns about AI-generated content (see Section 7.7), note them here. Flag the specific passages or patterns that prompted the concern without making a direct accusation. 

Criticism should always be expressed in a professional and respectful manner. Reviewers should avoid dismissive, personal, sarcastic, or unnecessarily harsh language. The aim is to uphold academic standards while contributing positively to scholarly exchange. 

9. Recommendation Categories 

Reviewers will be asked to select one of the following outcomes in the OJS portal: 

  • Accept without revisions 
  • Accept subject to minor revisions 
  • Revise and resubmit 
  • Reject 

These recommendations are advisory rather than determinative. Final editorial decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief or the delegated section editor. Where recommending revision or rejection, reviewers should provide sufficient reasoning in the report to support their recommendation. 

10. Major and Minor Revisions 

Major revisions 

These concern matters such as: 

  • substantial weaknesses in argument; 
  • insufficient engagement with relevant scholarship; 
  • significant evidential or methodological deficiencies; 
  • problems of structure requiring substantial reorganisation; 
  • claims that require major qualification or reworking. 

Minor revisions 

These concern matters such as: 

  • clarification of wording or terminology; 
  • additional citations to strengthen a point; 
  • modest improvements to structure; 
  • correction of errors in references, grammar, or formatting. 

This distinction assists both editors and authors in understanding the scale of revision required. 

11. Reviewing Interdisciplinary and Early-Career Work 

As a journal associated with Harris Manchester College, the Journal receives and publishes submissions from mature students and researchers of diverse disciplines and at different stages of their scholarly progression. Reviewers should maintain the same scholarly standards for all submissions, while remaining attentive to differences in disciplinary convention, method, and style. 

A manuscript should be assessed according to the standards appropriate to its field and purpose, not against assumptions drawn from unrelated disciplinary norms. 

12. Timeliness 

Reviewers are asked to return their reports within four weeks of accepting the invitation. This deadline is set in the OJS portal and reviewers will receive automated reminders as the deadline approaches. 

If circumstances change and a delay becomes unavoidable, reviewers should inform the editorial office promptly via the Discussions panel on the review page in the OJS portal, or by emailing journal@hmc.ox.ac.uk. Timely review is important both to authors and to the proper functioning of the Journal. 

VOLUME 1 DEADLINE:  Volume 1 deadline: all reviews must be completed by Week 1, Michaelmas Term 2026 (approximately 12 October 2026). The Journal cannot guarantee publication in Volume 1 if reviews are received after this date. 

12.1 If a reviewer does not respond 

If a reviewer has accepted an invitation but has not submitted their report within three weeks, the section editor will send a reminder via the OJS Discussions function. If no report is received by the four-week deadline, the section editor will contact the Editor-in-Chief to discuss whether to seek a replacement reviewer. Reviewers who cannot complete their review should notify the editor as early as possible so that alternatives can be arranged without delay to the author. 

13. Concerns About Misconduct or Serious Irregularity 

If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, duplicate publication, undisclosed conflict of interest, ethical impropriety, or any other serious irregularity, they should alert the editor confidentially and provide as much detail as possible. In particular, reviewers should be alert to potential undeclared or inappropriate use of AI tools. This may include, but is not limited to: the use of common AI terminology; repetitive phrasing; excessive use of Em dashes; fabricated/false citations or DOIs which do not exist; clear errors such as the existence of placeholder text. Such concerns should not be raised directly with the author. 

14. Revision and Re-review 

Where a revised manuscript is returned to the reviewer, the reviewer is asked to assess whether the author has responded adequately to the substantive concerns previously raised. Re-review should focus principally on the issues identified in the earlier report, while also noting any new concerns arising from the revision. 

15. Acknowledgement of Reviewer Service 

The Journal recognises that peer review is an essential form of academic service. The contribution made by reviewers may be acknowledged in appropriate ways consistent with reviewer confidentiality.