Skip to main content

Peer review and publication ethics

Peer review

All University of London Press books go through the same rigorous editorial and peer review processes, whether published open access or not.  

Peer review by independent experts is a crucial part of the academic publishing process, and book projects are assessed at both proposal and final manuscript stage so that authors benefit from multiple rounds of feedback aimed at improving the final published book. We have a robust and supportive peer review process, working closely with authors to keep them updated throughout and to navigate the feedback received. We aim to receive reviewer’s feedback on new proposals within 3 months of submission, where possible. We are very grateful for the time reviewers spend in assessing projects and reviewers are offered a selection of books published by UoL Press by way of compensation. 

Book proposals

The proposal will initially be assessed by the UoL Press editorial team (and series editors/series advisory board members, where relevant). If it fits with our publishing programme and we decide to proceed with the proposal, we will send it out for peer review. The review process is single anonymised, and proposals and sample material are sent to a minimum of two external peer reviewers. 

  • Reviewers are selected for their scholarly expertise and experience in the proposal’s field. Suggestions for reviewers may be made by UoL Press and/or series editors and series advisory board members if the book is intended for a specific series.
  • If any suggestions for potential reviewers provided by authors are taken on, they will not make up the full review panel and at least one additional reviewer will be sought.
  • It is expected that peer reviewers will declare any potential conflicts of interest to UoL Press prior to accepting a review invitation.
  • Reviewers are asked to provide feedback on: the academic contribution the book would make to the field; the need for such a book and the likely readership; the methodologies/arguments presented; the coverage; the factual accuracy of the content; the structure and organisation; the clarity of presentation; any other points or issues; and their overall recommendation on the suitability of the proposal for publication.
  • If the two reviewer reports differ considerably, or are uncertain in their recommendations, a third review will usually be sought. 
  • When peer reviews are in, these are anonymised and sent to the author/ editor. Usually, we will ask for a response to the reviews, which is then considered alongside the proposal and the peer reviews by the UoL Press editorial team and series editors/series advisory board. A decision is made on whether to recommend the proposal for acceptance, to request revisions to the proposal (which may necessitate a further round of peer reviews of the revised material), or to decline the proposal for publication.
  • If the proposal is recommended for acceptance, it would then be taken to the next UoL Press Publishing Committee meeting. The Publishing Committee makes the final decision on whether to approve a project for publication by UoL Press. The core membership of the Publishing Committee consists of UoL Press staff in key roles (across editorial, sales and marketing and production) and senior academic and library staff within the School of Advanced Study and wider University of London. If the proposal is approved, the author will then be offered a contract for the book. 

Final manuscripts

We send all final manuscripts of contracted books for a final ‘clearance’ review once submitted, to ensure that authors receive expert feedback on their full book. 

  • Once the final book manuscript has been written and submitted, a clearance review of the full text will be carried out by one or more external peer reviewers (and/or the series editor, where relevant). Reviewers are invited to comment on: the quality and factual accuracy of the content; the organisation of the book; the clarity and quality of presentation; any issues or essential revisions that may be required; and their overall recommendation on whether the book is ready for production work to begin.
  • The anonymised review feedback is communicated to the author and any final revisions to the manuscript requested and implemented. Following UoL Press approval, the manuscript is prepared for production by the editorial team.  

Peer review training

We also run annual training sessions on peer review as part of the School of Advanced Study’s Research Training calendar of events. Visit our training hub or access a recording and slides of our session on peer review.  

Publication ethics

The Press is committed to upholding publication and research ethics at all stages in line with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. We maintain the highest professional standards of integrity and support the principles of good research conduct outlined in the School of Advanced Study’s Statement on Research Integrity and the University of London’s Research Ethics Policy. As a Press, we conduct our business ethically and with transparency, in line with best practice in scholarly publishing. 

As a member of the EvenUP collective, we are committed to equity, diversity and inclusivity in our workplace, in who we work with and in what we publish. Authors, editors and peer reviewers are expected to adhere to the Press EDIA policy. All efforts should be made to carry out their duties without discrimination based on grounds of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or political beliefs. 


All University of London Press books go through the same rigorous editorial and peer review processes, whether published open access or not. Please see our full peer review policy for more information. Peer reviewers should declare any competing interests that could impact the impartiality of the review and only accept work they are qualified to review. The review process is confidential, therefore, information obtained during the peer review process should not be shared with others outside the process. 

All authors and co-authors must consent to the publication of their work. Author disputes should be raised with the Press and, if the publication is an edited collection, with the editor(s). In the event that the authorship changes, all lead book authors or editors need to give their written permission. 

All authors that contributed to the publication should be included in the authorship attribution. 

Gift authorship, or the practice of listing a person as author though they did not make a substantial contribution to the publication, is not accepted. 

Please refer to our Artificial Intelligence policy.

The editorial and production team will take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of books or articles where research and/or publication misconduct has occurred. Misconduct can include plagiarism, fabrication and falsification of research results, and legal issues such as defamation and copyright infringement. If the editorial and production team is made aware of any misconduct, it will be investigated with care and attention in consultation with relevant bodies, and the appropriate actions taken.  

Authors 

Authors are expected to adhere to ethical and legal standards for research and publication ethics guidelines. Work submitted by authors should be their original work and must not be under consideration elsewhere (authors of books may submit their proposal to multiple publishers, but this must be declared to us in the proposal form, and if we wish to move to the peer review stage with the proposal we will ask the author to agree to withdraw the proposal from the other publishers’ consideration). In the event of a misconduct investigation, authors are expected to fully cooperate with the editorial team.  

Book editors and series editors

Editors must uphold research and publication ethics while remaining in good communication with authors and the Press. They must ensure that all authors are given fair treatment, all research is rigorously reviewed, and authors are given fair advice and the right to appeal any editorial decisions.

Authors and editors are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest, or any interests that could be perceived as competing or leading to bias. Examples of conflicts of interest may include funding received to conduct the research, employment at a related company and holding stocks or shares in a related company.

  • Minor errors: Minor errors identified after publication that are not errors of fact nor affect the validity or interpretation of the content will not be corrected. Such errors may include, but are not limited to, spelling or grammatical mistakes and unclear wording. Authors will have opportunity to review and approve the copyedited text and typeset proofs in plenty of time prior to publication.
  • Corrections: If an error is identified in the data, is a factual mistake, and/or is determined to impact the argument presented, interpretation or conclusions, the Press may agree to a correction of the error. The content will be updated directly where possible and, to preserve the transparency and integrity of the scholarly record, a correction notice will be added to the book’s copyright page describing the details of and reasons for the edit. If making the correction would change the book’s pagination, the text will not be corrected directly and instead a footnote will be added to the relevant section directing the reader to the back of the book where the error and correction will be described in full. The correction notice will also be added to the copyright page. Corrected files in both cases will be sent to our printers, distributors, and open access platforms where applicable.
  • Retractions: If evidence of plagiarism, invalid findings (either through intentional misconduct or unintentional mistake) or otherwise unethically-conducted research is found, a retraction notice may be issued against part or the whole of the book. In some cases, this will also result in the withdrawal of the book or part of the book, for example, if there are legal issues with the content remaining available.

We believe that open access and open research play a vital role in supporting a positive research culture and researchers’ career development, and in upholding ethical and good research practices in the humanities – for example, through increasing transparency, fairness and breadth of access, reuse, idea-sharing, and opportunities for collaboration. We also recognise the importance of undertaking and publishing research responsibly and in line with ethical and legal frameworks.  
 
Best practice guidance for authors 

  • We encourage all our authors to use ORCID iDs if possible, and request these from authors as part of the proposal process. 
  • We encourage authors to think carefully at the start of their project about what outputs and material it would be desirable to make available to others (and what would not be possible; open publication is just part of the research lifecycle).  
  • Authors of open access books retain their copyright. We ask authors to apply a Creative Commons licence to enable reuse of their work, and support them to understand their rights associated with the licence. 
  • We ask authors to consider their use of third-party material and ensure that written permissions are obtained from the copyright holders specifically for open access publication, where this is relevant.
  • We encourage the open sharing of data linked to your work, where available and ethical/legal to do so. Useful guidance can be found on the UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) website, particularly relating to ‘FAIR’ principles (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable).
  • We can provide guidance to authors looking to bring open research methods into the writing and publication process, in creating ‘networked’ eBooks (involving iterative content creation, annotation tools or open peer review processes, for example).