Publication Ethics

JHUP Journals Ethics and Malpractice Statement

JHUP Journals Ethics and Malpractice Statement can be found here.

Peer Review Policy

Submission policy

  • Should be original work, and should not be under consideration for publication elsewhere

Preliminary review

  • All submissions (even if editor deems them weak submissions) are sent to two associate editors for internal review; associate editors determine whether or not submitted article is of high enough quality to merit external review

Type of review

  • Double-blind

Criteria for review

  • Whether or not a submitted article makes a contribution to the field (i.e., the study of late imperial China), whether or not the article will further scholarly work in a particular area
  • Whether or not a submitted article is a good fit for the journal, mainly in terms of chronological and geographical focus, but also in terms of methodological approach 
  • Whether or not a submitted article is adequately written

Revisions process

  • On occasion, depending upon the quality of an article, two associate editors in consultation with editor will ask an author to revise and resubmit an article before we send it out for external review; we do this when we think that an article has great potential but requires substantial revisions

  • For articles that have been sent out for external review, depending upon feedback from two external reviewers, on occasion we ask an author to revise an article, after which the article will be subjected to external review (in cases of “revise and resubmit”) or in-house editorial review (in cases of “conditional accept”)
  • For junior/first-time authors and for non-native speakers of English, we assign an associate editor to serve as a mentor, helping the author to address reviewers’ feedback in making revisions

Review process once revised

  • This depends upon the stage at which we ask for revisions
  1. For revise and resubmit after an initial review by two associate editors, we will have two associate editors (preferably the original two, but depending upon workload) assess whether the revised article merits sending out for external review
  2. For “revise and resubmit” after external review, we will send a revised article to one of the original two external reviewers
  3. For “conditional accept” after external review, editor and one or two of the associate editors who assessed the original article will assess the revised article; for junior authors, usually one of the associate editors who assessed the original article will be assigned as a mentor editor

Timetable

  • We ask that associate editors give feedback on articles within 7-10 days of submission
  • We ask that external reviewers complete their assessments within 3 months of receiving an article

The four articles in the forthcoming June 2019 issue were submitted in October 2017, January 2018, May 2018, and June 2018.  So, for these four articles, an average of 15.5 months from submission to publication.