JHUP Journals Ethics and Malpractice Statement
JHUP Journals Ethics and Malpractice Statement can be found here.
Peer Review Policy
Twentieth-Century China welcomes original submissions within the scope of the journal that have not yet been published—and are not concurrently under consideration for publication—in the same or similar form. Translations of influential work in another language may be considered on a case-by-case basis. Members of the editorial team scan submissions for an initial evaluation of whether it falls within the journal scope and standards. Manuscripts that make an original and coherent argument on an aspect of twentieth-century Chinese history via research with a significant basis in primary sources (including sources in Chinese or in other relevant languages) and cite an appropriate set of primary and secondary works will be approved for peer review. A manuscript whose length significantly exceeds 10,000 words (including the notes) may be returned with a request to shorten it before consideration.
Abstracts of manuscripts that meet the basic requirements are presented to the members of the editorial board, who offer suggestions for reviewers, including themselves. The editor in charge then sends the manuscript to two expert reviewers for evaluation in a double-blind process. After weighing the reviews and the verdicts of each reader, the editor arrives at a decision. A positive decision of “accept” or “accepted pending revision” (APR) means the author will consider the reviewers’ and editor’s comments and send a revised manuscript and an explanation of revisions to the editor in charge, who will read and evaluate it and may return it to the author with further comments or approve it for publication. Authors of APR manuscripts must satisfy the editor that they have considered and addressed the important critiques of the peer reviewers before final acceptance for publication. APR manuscripts are not sent back to reviewers. Manuscripts given a decision of “revise and resubmit” may be resubmitted after focused revision, accompanied by an explanation of how the author’s revisions address the readers’ reports. Such revised manuscripts are sent a second time to two peer reviewers, possibly including one or both of the original reviewers. They are fully evaluated as before. Manuscripts given a decision of “do not publish” may not be resubmitted for further consideration. Editors do not usually provide authors with readers’ reports when manuscripts receive a decision of “do not publish.”
Each article submitted as part of a proposed special issue will be individually evaluated, undergoing the full peer review process as outlined above. Acceptance of the issue will depend upon acceptance of the individual articles.
The journal aims to deliver decisions within 60 days of submission; almost all decisions are reached in less than 90 days.
“Notes on Archives and Sources” are subject to in-house and outside review; at the discretion of the editors, fewer than two outside reviewers may be employed. Book reviews and review essays on sets of books are solicited by the book review editor. Review essays are subject to review and acceptance by the editorial staff but will not be sent to outside reviewers. No unsolicited book reviews or suggestions for reviewers of books will be entertained.