Notes for Reviewers
The aim of Childhoods Today is to publish high quality empirical and theoretical work by up-and-coming researchers in the field of childhood studies and to provide a reference for others working in this and related fields. The Notes for Authors state that:
“Childhoods Today publishes a wide range of articles on any aspect of research or theory relating the sociology of childhood. Articles submitted will be considered by reviewers (normally two) on the basis not only of intrinsic merit but readability and likely interest to the journal's readers. All work submitted must be original.”
Reviewers are therefore asked to bear these points in mind when reviewing articles and assessing their suitability and/or readiness for publication.
Reviewers are also asked to bear in mind the fact that although the journal aims for and is committed to achieving high standards in the material it publishes, submissions will be from postgraduate students rather than established academics, which means that submissions may well require further work before they can be published. This being so, reviewers are asked to pay particular attention to assessing the potential for publication, even if sometimes considerable further work might be needed by the author to bring the article up to the required standard.
Articles will be anonymised and will normally be sent out to two reviewers, the identity of each being made known to the other. Reviewers are asked to read and comment on an article normally within four weeks and, having done so and drafted their comments, to contact the other reviewer, in order to share their assessments and, if possible, arrive at a joint recommendation and complementary comments.
Whilst this is not standard practice in most journals, given the role of Childhoods Today in encouraging up-and-coming researchers, we are asking reviewers to give detailed feedback to authors. In order to be of maximum benefit, however, care should be taken that contradictory advice is not proffered, as can sometimes happen. Reviewers are therefore asked to confer with each other before submitting their respective comments to the editor, in order to ensure that these do not contain conflicting advice.
In the event of a clear and unresolved difference of opinion between reviews, the article and the comments from the first reviewers will be sent to a third reviewer in order to arrive at a final recommendation. We would ask that the total time taken by the first two reviewers to return comments to the editor be no more than six weeks from the date of receipt.
It is anticipated that reviewers will not do any detailed editing of articles but it would be helpful if, rather than the sometimes general feedback that authors receive, reviewers would send detailed comments outlining the strengths and weaknesses of the article in terms of structure, content, critical analysis and presentation, and suggesting what improvements are needed, if any, to bring the article up to publishable standard. It is our expectation that outright rejections will not be the norm and that authors receiving constructive feedback will be encouraged to do the work required, if necessary with support from their supervisor.
Comments and recommendations should be sent to the editor on the review form, which is in MSWord. Alternatively, the framework the form provides may be used to provide comments and recommendations within the body of an email. As an e-journal, we would anticipate that most if not all communications between the editor and reviewers, and between reviewers, will be by means of e-mail and attachments.
If and when articles are resubmitted, they will be sent out again to the original reviewers for further comment, in order to ensure that the desired changes have been made and that the article is of the required standard for publication in the journal. In the event that further work is still required, reviewers will be asked to send further comments to the editor outlining the additional work that is needed. If, at this stage, the reviewers conclude after further consultation that major changes are still required, consideration should be given to rejecting the article.