Peer Review Instructions for TALES from CCBC
TALES’ collaborative peer review process is intended to promote the quality of the manuscripts published in the journal and is meant to be a constructive process. This site covers:
- What is TALES’ peer review model?
- What to expect from the peer-review process.
WHAT IS TALES’ PEER REVIEW MODEL?
TALES operates a double-blind model during the review process. This means that neither the reviewers know who the authors are while they complete their review, nor will the authors know who their reviewers are. Two reviewers will read each manuscript; ideally one reviewer will have content knowledge in the discipline of the manuscript while the other will be from a different field.
TALES believes that reviewers should be acknowledged for their work in conducting peer review. This is why we publish the complete panel of peer reviewers with each edition of the journal.
WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS.
The purpose of the peer review process is for the editors and reviewers to provide feedback to the authors to improve their manuscript. It can be a dialogue over multiple rounds of review.
Independent Review Phase
Reviewers are sent the manuscript without identifying author/affiliation information, as well as an independent review report to complete. During this first review phase, the reviewers assess the manuscript independently from each other. The review is completed by answering the independent review report.
Once all reviewers have submitted their independent review reports, the editor is responsible for activating the next phase of the review: the collaborative review phase. Even if the independent review reports are unfavorable, the collaborative review phase will occur.
Collaborative Review Phase
During the collaborative review phase, the independent reviewers first view the independent review report from the other reviewers. Next, the reviewers have a meeting to discuss the individual independent review reports and come to a consensus about the best recommendations for improving the manuscript. The reviewers are provided with a collaborative review report to complete together, and the reviewers collectively complete one collaborative review report. This report is returned to the editor, and if no major edits are requested by the peer review team, their work is now completed.
If the peer review team requests major edits, there will be subsequent rounds of collaborative review until the manuscript has satisfied the peer review team. This may result in the manuscript being published in a later issue of TALES.
If the peer review team does not request substantial edits by the authors, the editor provides the authors with the constructive comments by the peer review team. The editor oversees the completion of the minor edits to the manuscript by the authors.
If the peer review team requests major edits by the authors, the editor facilitates the process by providing the constructive comments by the peer review team to the manuscript authors. The manuscript authors return their edited manuscript to the editor, and the editor provides the blinded manuscript to the peer review team for another round of the collaborative review process. If the peer review team requests major edits from the authors again, this collaborative review process can cycle through one final round of review. If major edits are still requested, the manuscript can be revised again, but note that it may need to publish in a later edition due to time constraints.
Contact the Managing Editor, Michael Hands, at email@example.com with questions and to express your interest in becoming a peer reviewer for TALES.