Guidelines for authors, reviewers, and contributors

The British Journal of Social Work publishes papers on social work across the globe. Papers submitted to the Journal have to ‘speak’ to an international social work audience of students, practitioners, social work academics, people with lived and/or living experience of social work – and anyone interested in social work as a profession.  We encourage you to read our ‘About the Journal’ section to find out if British Journal of Social Work is the right fit for your work.

Type of work we publish

1. Original articles on any aspect of social work research and theory. Articles should be between 5,000 to 6,000 words, but not exceed 7,000 words in length, excluding the abstract, but including references, reference list, tables and figures.
   • Guidelines regarding multiple pages from a single research study
     
     The BJSW is ordinarily able to publish only one paper from a single research study, preferably that which the authors might consider the overview or core paper. Exceptionally, more than one paper might be published - for example from a large, multi-faceted project. Submitting authors should advise in their covering letter and at step 4 of the submission process if a previous paper from the same study has been published, or is currently under review, giving full citation details and explaining their rationale for submitting more than one paper.
2. Short replies to published articles (maximum 1,500 words) can be published if thought by the editor (s) to be of interest to the readership.
3. Critical Commentaries should only be submitted if commissioned by the Editors.
4. Book reviews - publishers with books for review and authors wishing to write a book review, please direct all enquiries to [email protected], for the attention of the Book Reviews Editors.
5. Reflective contributions by experts by experience – one of the options to promote the voice and influence of people who have experience of using social and/or health care

Voice and influence of people with lived experience of social work services

The British Journal of Social Work prioritises submissions that incorporate and promote the perspectives of people with personal experience of the issues being examined. We welcome submissions authored or led by authors with lived experience of social work. The Editorial Team can offer additional support for submissions by authors with lived experience of social work. If you would like to discuss your publication idea prior to submission, please contact the Editorial Office ([email protected]).

Guidelines for authors

Accessibility guidance for the Oxford University Press, British Journal of Social Work and our webpage is available on OUP's Accessibility page. 

Guidelines on what needs to be included in the submitted manuscripts, presentation guidelines, and referencing. 

For information and instructions on manuscript submission please see the Online Submission Instructions webpage.

For guidelines for authors and reviewers on criteria used for reviewing submitted papers, please check Guidelines for authors and reviewers.

All authors planning to submit their manuscript to the Journal are encouraged to read related articles published in the Journal over the past 5-10 years.

The peer review process

Each submission to the Journal undergoes a double-blind peer review process. This means that an anonymised version of each submitted paper is reviewed by two to three reviewers who are knowledgeable about the topic of your work and/or it’s context. Our reviewers include social work researchers, teachers, practitioners and people with lived experience of social work from across the globe.

Following a review process, authors receive anonymised feedback from the reviewers. Where relevant, you may also receive additional comments from the member of the Editorial Team (for example, identifying what you need to prioritise when revising the paper).

There are several principles that inform the peer review process:

• A ‘blind’ reviewing process is used where reviewers are not known to each other, and reviewers declare a conflict of interest if they know or feel that they might know the authors.
• There is an expectation that the review will be completed within an agreed timescale to enable the process to continue towards publication or non-publication. Average time to first decision for 2023 was 63.77 days
• Feedback style and content should be helpful, constructive and clear, even when a paper appears weak. you receive from reviewers should be constructive and clear.
• The style and content of feedback should be helpful and constructive, even if the paper is not recommended for publication.

What do we mean by high quality, scholarly papers?

Quality of the submitted papers is assessed using the following criteria:

• Does the abstract follow the Journal’s guidelines?
• Does the teaser text offer a summary of the article in plain English?
• Does the paper offer original and/or novel contributions to the knowledge base in the chosen area of study?
• Is there sufficient coverage and critical evaluation of relevant literature?
• Does the paper contextualise the subject for national and international audiences
• Is there a coherent overall structure?
• Is there clarity of discussion and analysis?
• Is there a conclusion consistent with the paper's aims and content?
• Does the paper address the implications of the presented work for people who use social work services, their families, and/or the wider public?
• Are relevant anti-oppressive practice issues made explicit (in terms of race, and ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability and health status, religion, age, gender, and class)?
• Do the references follow the Journal’s guidelines?

If the paper reports an empirical study, assessment should also be made about the additional categories:

• Is there a clear rationale for the choice of method?
• Is the method of data collection and analysis clear?
• Are the tables and figures understandable and accurate?
• Are ethical issues and considerations made transparent and noted in all types of submissions? Oxford University Press Ethics policy is available here.
• Is there a statement on methodological limitations?
• Are findings related to the existing knowledge base?
• Do authors consider implications of their work for social work policy and practice?
• What are authors’ suggestions for possible future research?

It is common for papers to undergo 2-3 rounds of review prior to publication. Even strong papers may require minor amendments. Reviewers need to address all of the above noted criteria, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement. Even when a paper is assessed as strong and relevant, good reasons must be given which underpin the reviewer's judgement. The Editorial Board do not hold themselves responsible for views expressed by the reviewers.

If a paper is not deemed of publishable standard in the Journal following 1-2 reviews, comments from the reviewers and Editorial Team should help the authors consider how to revise the paper for submission to another Journal.

Conflict of Interest Policy

Editors

Submission by Editor

Submission by the Editor or Co-Editor is not permitted.

Submission by author at same institution as an Editor

A paper submitted by an author who is at the same institution as the Editor or one of the Co-Editors will be handled by one of the other Co-Editors or by an Associate Editor who is not at that institution. The Editor or Co-Editor who is at the same institution as the author will not be involved in selecting referees or making any decisions on the paper.

General policy

If the Editor or Co-Editors or Review Editor feel that there is likely to be a perception of a conflict of interest in relation to their handling of a submission or book for review, they will declare it to the other Editors or to the Editorial Board, and the submission or review will be handled in the same way as described above.

Reviewers of papers

Potential conflict of interest for reviewer

The invitation letter to reviewers includes the following paragraph: 'If you know or think you know the identity of the author, and if you feel there is any potential conflict of interest in your reviewing this paper because of your relationship with the author (e.g. in terms of close friendship or conflict/rivalry) or for any other reason, please declare it. By accepting this invitation, it is assumed there is no potential conflict of interest.' Standard policy will be not to use a reviewer if a conflict of interest has been declared, but the Editor or Co-Editors may use his/her/their discretion after consulting with one another or with the Associate Editor(s) or with the Editorial Board.

Authors

Sources of funding

On acceptance, authors will be asked to provide a statement declaring all sources of funding relating to their paper, and the statement will be printed on the title page or at the end of their paper.

Review Editor

Sending Review Editor’s own book out for review

In the case of the Review Editor’s own publications, as sole author, editor, co-editor or contributor, the Editor or one of the Co-Editors will handle the process, including the initial decision as to whether the book should be reviewed, the choice of reviewer and the decision whether to accept the review for publication. If the Editor or all Co-Editors are at the same institution as the Review Editor, then the process will be handled by an Associate Editor or by an Editorial Board member who is not at the same institution. The process will be handled in such a way that the Review Editor does not have access to information or correspondence relating to the review.

Book reviewers

Potential conflict of interest for book reviewer

The invitation letter to reviewers should include the following wording: ‘If you feel there is any potential conflict of interest in your reviewing this book because of your relationship with the author (e.g. in terms of close friendship or conflict/rivalry) or for any other reason, please declare it. By accepting this invitation, it is assumed there is no potential conflict of interest.’ Standard policy will be not to use a reviewer if a conflict of interest has been declared, but the Review Editor may use his/her discretion after consulting with the Editor or Co-Editors.