Peer Review Process

Critical Dialectics follows a structured and double-anonymous peer review process to maintain the quality, originality, and academic integrity of the research it publishes. The process is designed to provide authors with constructive feedback while ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated fairly and carefully.

1. Submission and Initial Screening

Authors submit their manuscripts according to the journal’s submission guidelines. After submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to check:

  • Whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of Critical Dialectics.
  • Whether it follows the journal’s submission requirements.
  • Whether it meets basic standards of academic writing and presentation.
  • Whether there are concerns relating to plagiarism or academic misconduct.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the scope of the journal or do not meet the basic requirements may be declined at this stage.

2. Plagiarism Screening

All submitted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism and significant textual overlap using appropriate detection tools. Authors are responsible for ensuring that their work is original and that all sources are properly acknowledged. Manuscripts involving plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct may be rejected.

3. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Critical Dialectics follows a double-anonymous review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential during the review process.

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript independently and provide clear, constructive, and academically relevant comments.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers generally consider the following aspects:

  • Originality and Relevance: The significance and originality of the topic and argument.
  • Critical Engagement: The depth of engagement with relevant texts, theories, concepts, or scholarly debates.
  • Research Quality: The suitability and clarity of the research approach and supporting evidence.
  • Argument and Analysis: The coherence, depth, and strength of the central argument and analysis.
  • Structure and Presentation: The organisation, clarity, academic style, and overall presentation of the manuscript.
  • Contribution to Knowledge: The potential contribution of the work to literature, philosophy, culture, critical theory, or related areas of the humanities.
  • Academic and Ethical Standards: Appropriate citation, use of sources, originality, and compliance with accepted research ethics.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or minimal changes.
  • Minor Revisions: Limited changes are required before publication.
  • Major Revisions: Significant changes are required, and the revised manuscript may be sent for further review.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s academic or editorial standards.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision rests with the editorial team.

6. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief, or an authorised editor, makes the final decision after considering the reviewers’ reports, the quality of the manuscript, and the journal’s editorial policies.

Authors are informed of the decision and, where applicable, receive the reviewers’ comments and revision requirements.

7. Revision and Resubmission

Authors whose manuscripts require revision are expected to address the reviewers’ comments carefully and submit a revised manuscript within the specified period.

For major revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

8. Final Approval and Publication

Once the required revisions have been satisfactorily completed, the manuscript undergoes final editorial checks. Accepted manuscripts are then prepared for publication in the appropriate issue of Critical Dialectics.

The journal publishes its articles online under an open-access model.

9. Use of Generative AI

Authors must disclose the use of generative AI tools where such tools have been used in preparing the manuscript, including for writing, analysis, or other substantive aspects of the research.

AI tools cannot be listed as authors. Human authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and ethical standards of their work.

Undisclosed or inappropriate use of AI may result in rejection, withdrawal, or other editorial action, depending on the circumstances.

10. Research Ethics and Disclosure

Authors are expected to comply with relevant institutional and research-ethics requirements. Where applicable, authors should disclose:

  • Sources of research funding.
  • Any potential conflicts of interest.
  • Relevant ethical approval or clearance.
  • Any other information required for responsible scholarly publication.

11. Review Timeline

The review period may vary depending on the availability of suitable reviewers, the nature of the manuscript, and the extent of revisions required. The journal aims to process submissions as efficiently as possible without compromising the quality of peer review.

12. Confidentiality and Ethical Practice

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated as confidential during the review process. Critical Dialectics is committed to maintaining a fair, independent, and ethical peer review system and follows recognised principles of responsible academic publishing.

Contact

For questions about the peer review process or related editorial policies, please contact:

Email: criticaldialectics@gmail.com