Peer Review

Double-blind peer-reviewed items undergo both editorial review and double-blind peer review before being accepted (further details below).

Editorial peer-reviewed items are single or blind reviewed, undergoing a) review by at least one editor and one other reviewer OR b) review by two editors before being accepted by the journal.

Journal Review Policy Statement

The Journal of L.M. Montgomery Studies publishes scholarship and other work dedicated to expanding the discourse on Montgomery, her life, her work, and her legacy in all of its diverse forms. The journal publishes a variety of media relevant to L.M. Montgomery studies, including, but not limited to, conventional scholarship.

Both editorial peer review and double-blind peer review processes are rigorous. The author, in consultation with the collection editor, will decide which process is appropriate. The ultimate decision may depend on author preference, submission type, or other factors.

For double-blind peer-reviewed contributions, the journal adheres to a strict policy of double-blind peer review to ensure best practices in scholarly research and publication. The journal encourages the peer review of work, such as creative work, not traditionally submitted to such review. Editorial peer review (single or non-blind review) publications must also meet high standards; we believe this alternative to double-blind review is important for our diverse authorship, which is international and works inside and outside the academy.

The journal’s reviewers play an integral role in maintaining the journal’s high standards by reviewing manuscripts and advising the editors on the publication of submitted contributions. The journal’s review processes are outlined below.

Initial Manuscript Evaluation

Upon submission, contributors receive an acknowledgement letter. The editors screen all submissions prior to initiating review. Contributions rejected at the submission stage do not meet the editorial standards for the type of submission. Contributions that pass through the screening stage then enter one of the peer-review processes.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

In double-blind peer review, both the reviewers and the contributors remain anonymous throughout the process. The editors work hard to eliminate conflicts of interest in the peer-review process.

The editorial team at the Journal of L.M. Montgomery Studies facilitates peer review by anonymizing contributions and corresponding with potential peer reviewers. Once blinded, contributions are shared with two experts within the field (for academic contributions, this ideally means one Montgomery expert and one expert in another relevant field such as, for example, fan studies or children’s literature, as appropriate; for other content types, this ideally means one Montgomery expert and one media expert, such as a creative writer or visual artist, as relevant). Occasionally, the editors receive contradicting peer reviewers’ reports. Ideally, the reviewer who had not recommended acceptance will read a revised version of the essay; otherwise, we request a report from a third reader.

Editorial Peer Review Process

For authors opting for editorial peer review (rather than double-blind peer review), the process will be single-blind (reviewers will know the identity of the author[s] but the author will not know the reviewers’) or non-blind (both the author[s] and reviewer[s] know each other’s identities). Contributions are reviewed by two editors (for example, volume co-editor[s]) or at least one editor and at least one other expert. (Experts are chosen in the same way as in the double-blind peer-review process outlined above.) The editors work hard to eliminate conflicts of interest in the review process.

The editorial team at the Journal of L.M. Montgomery Studies facilitates review by corresponding with editorial peer reviewers. Occasionally, the editors receive contradicting reviewers’ reports; for editorially reviewed pieces, the collection editor(s) will make a final determination about acceptance and necessary revisions.

Submissions from Editorial Board Members

The journal is fortunate to have many leading experts in Montgomery studies on its board and will naturally expect to publish their work. Please note that submissions from the editors and editorial board go through the same review processes as other submissions.

Reviewer Reports

Each double-blind peer reviewer of a scholarly submission (that is, a conventional academic article) receives a rubric, which includes assessment of the following:

• Significance of Subject
• Quality of Research and Arguments
• Connection to Conversations in the Field(s)/Relationship to Theoretical Contexts
• Standard of Academic Writing

Each double-blind peer reviewer of a creative submission (that is, a poem or a poem with reflective apparatus attached) receives a rubric, which includes assessment of the following:

• Significance of Subject
• Artistic Merit
• Connection to Montgomery’s Life, Works, Legacy
• Relationship to Montgomery Studies

Double-blind peer reviewers also make one of the following recommendations to the editors:

• Accept as is or with minor revisions
• Accept with significant revisions
• Reject

Additionally, double-blind peer reviewers are asked to provide significant commentary for contributors and are also provided with space to make comments intended solely for the editors. Reviewers are not asked or expected to make any copy-editing comments.

Each editorial peer reviewer of a submission receives a form requiring that they make one of the following recommendations to the editors:

• Approve: If there are no significant content problems and only minor style/structure/formatting problems.
• Return to contributor: If there are significant content problems and/or substantial style/structure/formatting problems that need to be addressed. What are the problems?
• Reject: The problems are too great for the piece to be revised for publication.

Review Process

The Journal of L.M. Montgomery Studies moves each submission through the following review process:

• Receipt and Acknowledgement of Submission
• Initial Manuscript Evaluation (by collection editor[s])
• Review Process
  • Blinding of Contribution (for double-blind peer review)
  • Locating Appropriate Peer Reviewers
  • Processing of Reviewers’ Reports
• Editorial Decision
• Contributor Correspondence
  • Signing and Processing of Publication Agreement
  • Copy-Editing
  • Final Edits and Review

If the editors need to ask for rereading or a third reader, the process may be delayed. Additionally, the process may slow down during academic recesses when potential reviewers are away from their offices.

Decision-Making Process

Based upon two or more readers’ reports, the collection editors are responsible for deciding to accept or reject each contribution, and for communicating this decision to the submitter. At the completion of the review process, each submitter receives a formal letter from the editors that includes notes from the reviewers.

There are three possible decisions following editorial/peer review:

1. Accept with minimal revisions (post review).
2. Accept with substantial or specific revisions (post review).
3. Reject, at least in its current form. (This decision could be made post peer review or prior to peer review, based on the review of the collection editor[s]).

Becoming a Reviewer

If you would like to become a reviewer for the Journal of L.M. Montgomery Studies, please contact the editors at montgomeryjournal@upei.ca and ask to be added to the journal’s reviewer database. In the email, please include a list of your current areas of research and attach a current CV. The benefits of becoming a peer reviewer for the Journal of L.M. Montgomery Studies include access to the most current research in the field of L.M. Montgomery Studies. The editors are also happy to provide you with a formal letter of recognition that may be used as a part of your tenure and promotion file or your professional portfolio.