Independent peer review is an integral part of the quality assurance process for all volumes published in this series. It helps ensure that proposed and completed manuscripts meet appropriate standards of scholarly rigour, originality, accuracy and contribution to their field.

All proposals and full manuscripts undergo independent peer review, supported by editorial assessment at both stages. This process enables us to assess the academic merit of proposed

volumes before commissioning and to evaluate the quality of the completed work before publication.

The precise focus of a review will vary according to the discipline, subject matter and form of the proposed or completed work. Reviewers are therefore asked to apply appropriate standards for the field while considering the scholarly quality, integrity and contribution of the work as a whole.

How our independent peer review process works

Who conducts the peer reviews?

Reviewers are independent academics with appropriate subject expertise relevant to the topic of the book. We adopt a single anonymous peer review process, with reviewers aware of the authors and their track record as part of the assessment of the viability of the book. We try to avoid reviewers with a close connection to the proposed book or its authors, or who have written a competing book. Reviewers have the right to remain anonymous, but are free to share their review with the author independently if they choose to do so. This allows for robust decision making, but also allows authors to ask further questions if the book is recommended for publication.

What are the different stages for independent peer review?

1. Proposal review

All proposals are independently peer reviewed before a volume is commissioned in the series. Reviewers are asked to assess the scholarly merit of the proposed work, including its originality, significance, scope, approach and potential contribution to the field, as well as its suitability for the aims of the series. The series editor and Trotman editor considers the reviews when deciding whether to proceed with a proposal and whether revisions are required before proceeding.

2. Full manuscript review

Once submitted, the complete manuscript undergoes independent peer review. This enables reviewers to evaluate the work as a whole, including the quality of its scholarship, the strength of its arguments, the appropriateness of its methods, and the extent to which it fulfils the aims set out in the proposal. Reviewers may recommend revisions where necessary to strengthen the manuscript before publication.

Editorial assessment and decisions

Editorial assessment takes place at both the proposal and full-manuscript stages. Peer reviewers provide independent scholarly advice, while the editorial team (made up of the series editor and Trotman editor) considers their reports alongside the requirements and objectives of the series in reaching commissioning and publication decisions. Where revisions are requested, the editorial team assesses the responses and revised material as appropriate.

What do independent peer reviewers assess?

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the aspects of a proposal or manuscript most relevant to its subject, scope and methodology. Depending on the nature of the work, this may include the following:

1. Contribution and originality

  • Originality: Does the work offer original insights, interpretations, arguments or findings?
  • Contribution to knowledge: Does it make a meaningful contribution to existing scholarship and advance understanding in its field?
  • Significance: Does it address an important, timely or intellectually valuable subject?
  • Scope and fit: Is the work appropriate for the aims, readership and scholarly objectives of the series?

2. Scholarly argument and intellectual rigour

  • Argument and analysis: Are the central arguments clearly articulated, logically developed and adequately supported by evidence?
  • Critical engagement: Does the work demonstrate appropriate depth of analysis, critical judgement and engagement with relevant debates?
  • Consistency: Are the conclusions supported by the evidence and reasoning presented?
  • Balance and perspective: Are relevant alternative interpretations, limitations and counterarguments adequately considered?

3. Methodology and research design (where applicable)

  • Appropriateness: Are the research methods, theoretical frameworks and study designs appropriate to the research questions and objectives?
  • Rigor and transparency: Are the methods
    explained clearly enough for readers to assess the validity of the approach?
  • Limitations: Are methodological limitations and potential sources of bias acknowledged and addressed appropriately?

4. Data, evidence and analysis (where applicable)

  • Reliability: Are the data and other supporting evidence appropriate, credible and sufficient to support the claims made?
  • Analysis: Are the analytical techniques and interpretations appropriate to the material and research questions?
  • Statistical analysis: Where relevant, are statistical methods correctly applied and results accurately reported?
  • Transparency: Are the sources of evidence, data and materials adequately identified, with appropriate information about their availability where relevant?

5. Literature and references

  • Engagement with scholarship: Does the work demonstrate a thorough understanding of relevant literature and existing research?
  • Accuracy and currency: Are references accurate, appropriate and sufficiently up to date for the field?
  • Fair representation: Is previous scholarship represented fairly and critically, without significant omissions or undue reliance on a narrow range of perspectives?
  • Positioning: Is the work's contribution clearly situated within the wider scholarly context?

6. Structure, clarity and presentation

  • Organisation: Is the work logically structured, with a clear progression of ideas and arguments?
  • Clarity: Is the writing clear, precise and appropriate for its intended academic readership?
  • Presentation: Are figures, tables, illustrations, appendices and other supporting materials relevant, accurate, clearly labelled and appropriately referenced?
  • Completeness: Are there significant gaps, inconsistencies or areas requiring further explanation?
  • Reviewers are not generally expected to undertake detailed copy-editing, but should identify language or presentation issues that impede understanding or compromise the communication of the scholarship.

7. Research ethics and academic integrity

  • Ethical compliance: Where applicable, has the research been conducted in accordance with relevant ethical standards, including appropriate ethics approval, consent and safeguards for human participants or animal research?
  • Responsible research practice: Are the provenance of data and other research materials, authorship and acknowledgements, and any relevant declarations appropriately addressed?
  • Academic integrity: Are there concerns about plagiarism, unattributed use of others' work, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, or other potential breaches of research integrity?
  • Conflicts of interest: Are any relevant competing interests disclosed, and are there concerns that could affect the impartiality or credibility of the work?

8. Overall assessment and recommendation

Reviewers are invited to provide a reasoned assessment of the work's strengths, limitations and any revisions needed. They are also asked
to advise the editorial team on the appropriate next steps, which may include:

  • Accepting the work in its current form;
  • Requesting minor revisions;
  • Requesting major revisions; and
  • Recommending that the work not be accepted for publication.

Recommendations are considered alongside the substantive
comments in the review report and the editorial assessment. The final decision
rests with the editorial team.