Chester Research Online

Editorial Policy

 

Term of Reference

Chester Research Online is an outlet for original research or scholarly work of a quality recognised through a peer-review process and which is acceptable to the Editorial Board. Chester Research Online is the only approved method for releasing results of research and other unpublished outputs on the University web site.

Editorial Policy

Chester Research Online consists of an overarching generic Series and number of subject or area-specific Collections. A member of the Editorial Board shall be appointed Editor for each Collection. The Chair of the Editorial Board shall be Editor of the generic Series.

Collections may set their own editorial policy but are required to comply with the minimum overall standards set out in the Series peer review process.

The title, editorial policy, review template, style guide and layout template for Collections must be approved by the Editorial Board. Subsequent minor amendments to approved Collections may be approved by Chair’s action.

Series Peer review process

i. Outputs should be sent to the relevant Collection Editor, who is responsible for checking that there is a prima facie case for publication.

ii. The output shall then be sent to a minimum of one reviewer chosen by the Editor. Reviewers must be independent (that is, not a co-author of the output, a collaborator on the associated project, or supervisor) and able to make a valid judgement on the quality of the output. The Editor may decide to approach an external reviewer if there is insufficient independent expertise within the University. The Editor may choose to approach a second reviewer where necessary. Additional requirements for the selection of reviewers may be set by Collection Editors and should be approved by the Editorial Board.

iii. Reviews should be prepared using a template provided by the Editor. The Editorial Board shall provide Collections with a standard review template, which Editors may amend, with the agreement of the Editorial Board.

iv. To be accepted, an output must have received at least one favourable review and the author must, to the satisfaction of the Editor, have addressed all amendments required by the reviewer and/or the Editor.

v. The Editor is responsible for ensuring that outputs are copy-edited and forwarding the final publication-ready copy in PDF format to the Research and Knowledge Transfer Office. The output must be accompanied by a copy of the peer review report and a declaration from the Editor stating that it has been accepted.

vi. The Editorial Board shall set minimum standards for the style and layout of published outputs. Individual Collections must provide authors with a style guide and layout template which comply with the standards set by the Series Editorial Board.

vii. The responsibility for obtaining permissions to include copyright material in outputs rests with the author. Evidence that permissions have been obtained must be provided to the Editor prior to acceptance. A standard letter to request permissions shall be provided by the Editorial Board