Review

1. Proposal
2. Review
3. Contract
4. Writing and content preparation
5. Submission
6. Production
7. Publication and beyond

Our main criteria when evaluating a new work for publication are its quality and whether it supports OUP’s mission of furthering education and disseminating knowledge. Peer review is an essential aspect of our approval process, and each proposal is also assessed by the Delegates of the Press. The feedback provides a valuable outside perspective for authors to test and refine their ideas with a knowledgeable representative.

If the initial editorial assessment is positive, the proposal and accompanying material will be sent out for peer review.

Review timescales and expectations

We recognise that there is a balance to be struck between the timely advancement of a book proposal and allowing a reasonable time for a reviewer to complete their review to an appropriate standard. The time required to complete peer reviews is dependent both on the time needed to secure appropriate reviewers and the time they, in turn, require to complete their reviews. We will update you on progress with the peer review process. Please indicate if you are working within particular timeframes for a publishing decision. 

If the initial editorial assessment is positive, your proposal and accompanying material will be sent out for peer review.

Peer review

Peer review provides for the assessment of research by appropriately qualified peers and stakeholders. The objective is both to validate the work and facilitate its improvement, and the process takes into account current knowledge in the field.

Reviewers will receive the full proposal, including information about the author as well as any sample chapters and original thesis submitted. 

We do not ordinarily undertake double-anonymised peer review, in which the author’s identity is not disclosed to the reviewers.  With book projects, an understanding of an author’s background can be essential to the overall assessment. If there are reasons why you wish to remain anonymous during the review process, this can be discussed with the Acquisitions Editor when the proposal is submitted.

What does peer review assess?

• the overall contribution that the work is likely to make to existing literature and research or practice in the field

• the expertise of the author and their ability to deliver on the project as envisaged

• the project’s quality, aims, scope, and approach, and its weaknesses and strengths

• the value of the work to its intended audience and readership and its potential reception

• the extent to which the proposal is appropriately inclusive and diverse in terms of coverage and contributions

• whether the quality of research adheres to expected standards and is commensurate with current knowledge

Reviewers

Selection of reviewers

OUP believes that the selection of reviewers is of fundamental importance to the quality of the review process. Acquisitions Editors will use their knowledge of the area and existing contacts to identify and prioritise a list of potential reviewers. Our policy is to avoid reviewers who may have a perceived conflict of interest, and to that end we will avoid approaching reviewers who are in the same faculty and aim to avoid those who are recent colleagues of the proposing author.

We will aim to provide a suitable balance of reviewers reflecting different aspects of the work, whether different cross- or sub-disciplinary expertise, or the ability to reflect on different potential use cases. We will also look to maintain a good balance of reviewers in keeping with our desire to support diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Nominating reviewers

Whilst OUP will normally expect to identify and select appropriate reviewers, you can provide a note of reviewers you consider would be well-placed to review the work, should you wish. OUP does not commit to approach any reviewers suggested by a proposing author but may take these suggestions into account in planning the review process.

Blocking reviewers

Blocking reviewers is to be avoided where possible, and it is rarely requested or invoked. However, if there is a reason why you wish that certain individuals are not approached for review, you may notify the Acquisitions Editor, providing some indication as to why you consider that individual either unsuitable or unable to provide a fair review, or why providing that reviewer with the proposal might lead to other detrimental consequences for the proposed work. OUP does not commit to avoid approaching any reviewers as recommended by a proposing author but will take these suggestions seriously.

Confidentiality and originality

All materials provided for review are confidential. Evaluations of manuscripts are based on the expert judgment of peer reviewers, who should ensure that their feedback is original; the use of unauthorized assistance, including from large language models (LLMs), is prohibited.

Conflicts of interest

All reviewers will be asked at the earliest opportunity whether they have any conflicts of interest which may affect their ability to provide a fair and honest review whether regarding the author or the topic. 

Anonymity of reviewers

We will take steps to create an anonymised version of each review before the reviews are provided to you. We will remind reviewers that if they wish to ensure their anonymity, they should be careful not to include any comments which might make them identifiable (for example, first-person comments referencing their own work or mentions of a faculty or institution).  Acquisitions Editors will, where required, make adjustments to the peer review to remove any obvious evidence of the reviewer’s identity. 

Remuneration of reviewers

OUP provides an honorarium for peer reviews for book proposals, which may also be taken in the form of credit for OUP products.

OUP internal review

The Acquisitions Editor will read the reviewer feedback and determine whether the review is comprehensive and of a suitable quality, and if it provides an appropriate level of feedback. They may make follow-up requests to reviewers for clarification or further detail on specific points, or commission additional reviews to cover particular dimensions of the research or to provide further evidence where reviews are inconclusive or take markedly different positions on the quality of the proposal.

As a matter of principle, whilst a proposal remains under consideration, we consider that all reviews should be provided to the proposing author. The Acquisitions Editor may redact comments if they are felt to be inappropriate in tone or substance while seeking to retain the substantive value of the comments.  Where an Acquisitions Editor is concerned about preserving the substantive content of a review, they might choose to agree a version for use with the reviewer prior to distribution.

Peer review feedback may lead to one of three pathways:

• Rejection

  • Proposals may be rejected following peer reviews for several reasons. The reviewers may deem the proposed book to lack sufficient rigor in its research methodology or theoretical framework. It may be reviewed as not offering novel contributions or insights. Or, the clarity and coherence of the writing may not meet our standard for publication.

  • On occasion, a book proposal that has received satisfactory reviews may not proceed if it is nonetheless judged not to fit current commissioning and publishing priorities of the programme, or if the project is considered too narrow or broad in scope.

  • The Acquisitions Editor will share information from the peer reviews with the proposing author to help them understand the decision and determine what they wish to do with the project.

• Significant revision

  • If the reviews determine that there are significant issues with the work as proposed with regard to purpose, scope and methodology, or substance, and that it cannot be taken forward in its current form, the Acquisition Editor will provide the reviews and ask you to consider submitting a revised proposal.

•  Modification and improvement

  • Constructive and critical feedback may help you to reflect on the project and proposal. In responding to the peer review feedback, you may be asked to adjust the proposal or to provide further context and explanation of the decisions and rationale informing the proposed approach.

Author response to reviews

When the Acquisitions Editor is confident that a suitable set of reviews is available, the reviews will be anonymised and sent to you for consideration, along with an invitation to provide a response to the reviews. You will be asked to indicate how long they will require to consider the reviews and provide a response.

Your response to the reviews can take a number of forms, including inline comments, a separate schedule by reviewer, or a thematic response, but should involve a clear statement of the extent to which the reviews have been of assistance, where the author agrees or disagrees with the reviewer feedback, any further work they wish to undertake to determine how to address any of the comments made, and any material changes they intend to make to the structure or substance of the work as a result. If there are reasonably significant alterations to be made, you may provide a revised table of contents and synopsis for the work.

Raising concerns about the conduct or quality of reviews

If you have any concerns about the peer review process, we encourage you to raise these with the Acquisitions Editor, or to contact the relevant Head of Acquisition, where they will be treated in confidence.

OUP editorial decision on author’s response to reviews

Ideally, the response to the reviews will mean that the Press can be confident of the quality and value of the project and that, where appropriate, you have taken advantage of the reviews to improve the quality of the work as proposed.

There will also be good reasons why some reviewer comments are highlighted or rejected and, where you explain why you have taken this view in your response to the reviews, the Acquisitions Editor can proceed with internal approval highlighting the differing positions and the rationale for your preferred approach.

In circumstances where there is a more fundamental difference of opinion between the author and the reviewers, the Press will take a view on how to proceed. This may involve a further round of consultation with the reviewers or the commissioning of additional reviews, it may be that outstanding or unresolved issues lead to the proposal being rejected, or it may lead to you being asked to reconsider and resubmit your proposal.

Review by OUP Delegates

Where the results of the peer review process merit it, the Acquisitions Editor will then proceed with obtaining internal approval. The proposal and reviews will be discussed at an internal publishing meeting before being sent to the OUP Delegates. Delegates are trusted senior professors based at the University of Oxford, or at leading institutions elsewhere. It is the Delegates who ultimately approve the publication of each academic or professional title, safeguarding the quality of OUP’s publishing.

When a proposal has been approved by the Delegates, the Acquisitions Editor will be able to offer a contract for the project.

Next stage: Contract

Related information