Peer Review Process

Artsürem Publishing applies a double-blind peer review process to scholarly books and edited volumes that fall within the scope of its active collections.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions are first examined by the editorial team for scope, formal completeness, academic presentation, and compliance with the press’s ethical and editorial policies. Manuscripts that fall outside the scope of the press or do not meet minimum scholarly standards may be declined at this stage.

2. Anonymisation and External Review

Submissions that pass the initial screening are anonymised and sent to at least two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject competence and institutional independence.

3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers are not appointed when a conflict of interest may reasonably be assumed. As a rule, reviewers should not be from the same institution as the author and should not have engaged in recent direct scholarly collaboration with the author.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript with regard to:

- originality and scholarly contribution

- clarity of research question or editorial rationale

- theoretical coherence

- methodological soundness, where applicable

- use of sources and engagement with the literature

- overall suitability for the relevant collection

5. Editorial Outcomes

On the basis of the review reports, the editorial decision may be:

- accept

- accept with minor revisions

- revise and resubmit after major revisions

- reject

6. Divergent Reports

When review reports substantially diverge, the manuscript may be sent to an additional reviewer or reassessed by the Editorial Board.

7. Revision Process

Authors are expected to revise their manuscript in light of the reports and to submit a clear response indicating how each substantive point has been addressed.

8. Appeals

Authors may submit a reasoned academic appeal if they believe that a decision was based on a factual misunderstanding or a serious procedural problem. Appeals are reviewed by the press on a case-by-case basis.

9. Final Decision

The final decision to publish is made by the press after consideration of the review reports, the revised manuscript, and the recommendation of the relevant editorial body.