Peer Review Policy

Malton London Press uses a publication-specific assessment process. Our scholarly book route involves independent external peer review. Our examined doctoral thesis route and conference abstract route are described separately below. Each publication record identifies the route actually completed; editorial screening, thesis examination and external book peer review are not interchangeable labels.

Initial assessment

An editor assesses the proposal or manuscript for subject fit, scholarly purpose, authorship, completeness, permissions and research-integrity concerns. The editor may decline a project, request further material or invite a full manuscript. An invitation to submit a manuscript is not an acceptance. Payment, personal connections and commercial opportunities cannot determine the scholarly decision.

Independent review of scholarly books

Research monographs, short research books, textbooks, handbooks and books developed from masters dissertations receive at least two substantive reports from independent subject specialists before final acceptance. Reviewers assess the full manuscript. For edited volumes, each substantive chapter receives two independent assessments and the handling editor evaluates the coherence of the complete collection.

Reviewers must have relevant subject expertise and must not be members of the Press’s editorial staff. They must declare financial, personal, supervisory, institutional or collaborative relationships that could compromise their judgement. Authors may suggest specialists or explain exclusions, but the handling editor makes the appointments. A recent supervisor, close collaborator or person with a direct stake in the outcome is not an independent reviewer.

Anonymity and assessment criteria

Our standard arrangement is single-anonymous review: reviewers know the author’s identity, while reviewer identities remain confidential unless disclosure is agreed. Publicly deposited manuscripts can make anonymity impractical. The editor explains any alternative arrangement before review begins.

Reviewers consider the contribution, accuracy, engagement with relevant scholarship, quality of evidence, appropriateness of methods or argument, ethical issues and clarity for the intended readership. They provide reasons for their recommendations and identify revisions needed. They must not demand irrelevant citations or use unpublished material for their own work.

Revision and final decision

Authors receive the substantive reports and respond to the points raised. The editor may request further revision or renewed external review. Possible outcomes are acceptance, acceptance subject to revision, revision and resubmission, or rejection. Where reports materially disagree, the editor may seek a further independent report. The handling editor makes a reasoned recommendation and an unconflicted senior editor authorises the final decision.

We retain the reports, author responses and decision record in the editorial file with access restricted to those who need them. Reviews are confidential unless a separate open-review arrangement has been agreed. Review times vary with the manuscript, reviewer availability and revisions; we do not guarantee acceptance or publication by a fixed date.

Assessment of theses and conference publications

Examined doctoral thesis route

Authors may submit a completed doctoral thesis that has passed formal examination and any required corrections. We request evidence of the award or examination outcome, the awarding institution and year, the repository record where available, and confirmation that the author can grant the necessary publishing rights.

This route normally proceeds without an additional full external peer-review round commissioned by Malton London Press. We conduct editorial screening, verify the examination information supplied, assess suitability for a book readership, and check research integrity, permissions and production readiness. Authors may need to revise thesis-specific material and update the literature. Prior examination does not guarantee publication.

The book and its online record state that publication followed doctoral examination and publisher editorial assessment. They do not describe this route as independent external book peer review by Malton London Press. We do not guarantee that titles published through this route qualify for DOAB, OAPEN or any particular funder’s publication requirements.

Full paper conference proceedings

Each full paper must receive two substantive assessments from independent specialists before acceptance. The organiser may coordinate this process, but must supply the review method, conflicts declarations, reports and decision records for publisher verification. Conference presentation or acceptance of an abstract does not establish that the full paper has undergone peer review. The Press can decline papers that do not meet the agreed requirements.

Conference abstract books

Abstract books publish the abstracts selected for a named event. The volume identifies the event, organisers, editors, selection process and the material actually reviewed. Selection of an abstract is not described as review of a full paper. A DOI identifies the published item and does not certify its scientific quality. Download buttons and metadata distinguish an abstract PDF from a full research paper.

Editorial conflicts and appeals

Editors do not handle or decide on their own work or work involving a conflict of interest. An independent editor oversees reviewer selection and the decision in such cases. Authors can appeal a decision on grounds of a material factual error, an undisclosed conflict or a significant failure to follow the stated process. Appeals follow our Complaints and Appeals policy.

Transparency on each publication

Each record states the publication type, the assessment route, the material reviewed, the date of publication and the applicable licence. We correct an inaccurate review description rather than applying a new policy retrospectively to an earlier book. Where historical records are incomplete, we disclose the limitation and do not invent reviewer reports or dates.