Feminist Encounters: A Journal of Critical Studies in Culture and Politics operates a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from one another. Authors are responsible for preparing anonymized manuscripts and removing identifying information from the manuscript, file properties, acknowledgements, and other materials submitted for peer review. Peer review is an essential component of scholarly publishing and is intended to evaluate the originality, quality, methodological or analytical rigor, relevance, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts. It also provides authors with constructive feedback that may strengthen their work. Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts fairly, objectively, respectfully, and without discrimination or inappropriate ideological, disciplinary, institutional, personal, or other bias.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before being sent for external peer review.
During this stage, the editorial team may consider:
• alignment with the journal's aims and scope;
• scholarly relevance and originality;
• completeness and quality of presentation;
• adherence to submission requirements;
• plagiarism, duplication, or excessive textual overlap;
• ethical compliance;
• research integrity concerns; and
• general suitability for external peer review.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic scholarly, ethical, or editorial requirements may be declined without external peer review. Only manuscripts that successfully pass initial editorial screening and are considered suitable for external review are sent to peer reviewers. This wording is preferable to saying that every submission receives two peer reviews, because the journal clearly has an initial screening stage. It also aligns with your ethics and misconduct policies.
2. External Peer Review
Manuscripts proceeding to external review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise. Reviewers should have sufficient scholarly expertise to provide an informed and independent assessment of the manuscript.
Reviewers are selected on the basis of:
• expertise relevant to the manuscript;
• independence from the authors and the research;
• absence of relevant competing interests;
• scholarly or professional qualifications;
• previous reviewing experience where appropriate; and
• ability to provide a fair and constructive review.
The journal seeks to use external reviewers wherever appropriate to ensure independence and breadth of scholarly evaluation. Members of the Editorial Board may occasionally serve as reviewers when they possess relevant expertise, provided that they have no editorial role in handling the manuscript, no relevant conflict of interest, and can provide an independent assessment.
3. Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interest that could affect their impartiality.
Potential competing interests may arise from:
• recent or ongoing professional collaboration with an author;
• institutional affiliation;
• personal relationships;
• financial interests;
• academic disputes;
• supervisory relationships;
• direct competition; or
• other circumstances that could reasonably affect independent judgment.
Where a relevant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation or inform the editorial office immediately. The existence of a competing interest does not automatically constitute misconduct; however, it must be disclosed and appropriately managed. Editors will assign an alternative independent reviewer where necessary. This is consistent with the broader FEMENC ethics policy, although I would still recommend revising the old ethics-page sentence suggesting that authors may be prevented from publishing simply because a conflict exists.
4. Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents.
Reviewers must not:
• share the manuscript or any part of it with another person;
• disclose its content, arguments, data, findings, or conclusions;
• use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage;
• contact authors directly concerning the manuscript; or
• upload manuscripts or confidential review materials to third-party platforms, including generative AI systems, where confidentiality, copyright, or data security cannot be guaranteed.
If a reviewer wishes to recommend another qualified person or involve a colleague in the review, they must first obtain authorization from the editorial office. A reviewer must never independently forward a confidential manuscript to another person. The journal's confidentiality requirements also apply to editors and members of the editorial team. This change resolves the problem in the current wording, which says reviewers may inform the office if they prefer a colleague to write the review on their behalf. The revised wording makes prior editorial authorization mandatory.
5. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
• provide an objective, evidence-based, and constructive assessment;
• evaluate the manuscript within their area of expertise;
• maintain confidentiality;
• disclose competing interests;
• complete the review within the agreed timeframe;
• identify significant methodological, theoretical, analytical, or interpretive weaknesses;
• alert editors to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification, ethical problems, or other potential misconduct;
• recommend relevant scholarly literature where genuinely necessary; and
• communicate criticism respectfully and professionally.
Reviewers must not:
• make discriminatory or personally derogatory comments;
• impose irrelevant ideological or disciplinary preferences;
• require citation of their own work unless clearly relevant;
• manipulate citations;
• use peer review to obtain competitive or professional advantage; or
• allow personal disagreement with an author's conclusions to substitute for scholarly evaluation.
Reviewers may disagree with an author's interpretation or argument, but where the conclusions are reasonably supported by the evidence, reviewers should evaluate the work on scholarly grounds rather than personal preference.
6. Criteria for Reviewer Assessment
Reviewers should consider the following questions where relevant to the manuscript type.
Relevance and Contribution
• Does the manuscript fall within the journal's aims and scope?
• Does it make an original or meaningful contribution to feminist, gender, cultural, political, social, humanities, or interdisciplinary scholarship?
• Is the topic relevant to the international and interdisciplinary readership of Feminist Encounters?
• Does the manuscript engage appropriately with relevant scholarship?
This replaces the generic education-journal wording that appears in some earlier versions of the policy and aligns the criteria with FEMENC's actual scope. The journal's stated scope centers feminist research, gender, sexuality, race/ethnicity, class, disability, cultural politics, representation, discourse, activism, and related interdisciplinary work.
Research Design and Methodology
Where applicable:
• Is the research question or purpose clearly stated?
• Is the research design appropriate?
• Are the methods sufficiently explained?
• Are analytical procedures suitable and transparent?
• Are conclusions supported by evidence?
• Are limitations appropriately acknowledged?
• Have relevant ethical considerations been addressed?
The journal welcomes diverse methodological, theoretical, interpretive, historical, qualitative, and interdisciplinary approaches. Reviewers should therefore evaluate work according to standards appropriate to the research tradition used rather than applying inappropriate methodological criteria.
Theoretical and Interpretive Quality
• Is the conceptual or theoretical framework clear and appropriate?
• Are arguments coherent and sufficiently developed?
• Are interpretations supported by evidence or scholarly reasoning?
• Does the manuscript engage critically with existing literature?
• Are alternative interpretations addressed where appropriate?
Presentation
• Is the manuscript clearly organized?
• Is the argument understandable and logically developed?
• Are tables, figures, quotations, and other materials used appropriately?
• Is the language sufficiently clear for scholarly communication?
• Are references complete and relevant?
Reviewers should focus primarily on scholarly content rather than copyediting. Minor language or formatting issues may be identified, but reviewers should not allow stylistic preferences to overshadow scholarly assessment.
Ethical Considerations
Reviewers should alert the editor if they identify concerns relating to:
• plagiarism;
• duplicate or redundant publication;
• data fabrication or falsification;
• inappropriate image manipulation;
• research involving human participants without adequate ethical safeguards;
• inadequate informed consent;
• inappropriate treatment of vulnerable populations;
• breaches of confidentiality;
• undisclosed competing interests;
• authorship concerns;
• citation manipulation; or
• other potential violations of the journal's Publication & Ethics Statement.
Reviewers should not conduct their own investigation of suspected misconduct or contact authors directly. Concerns should be reported confidentially to the editorial office. The journal will address such concerns in accordance with its Publication & Ethics Statement and applicable COPE guidance.
Timeliness of Reviews
Reviewers are asked to return reports within the timeframe specified in the review invitation, normally within 4–6 weeks, where practicable.
If additional time is required, reviewers should contact the editorial office as early as possible. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within a reasonable timeframe, they should decline the invitation so that another reviewer may be appointed. The journal does not guarantee unusually short peer-review or publication times.
Reviewer Reports
Reviewer reports should be:
• constructive;
• specific;
• evidence-based;
• respectful;
• sufficiently detailed to support the recommendation; and
• focused on issues that materially affect the quality of the manuscript.
Generalized criticism or unsupported negative judgments should be avoided. Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor where necessary, but recommendations to the editor should generally be consistent with the substantive concerns communicated to the author. The editorial office reserves the right not to forward reviewer comments containing discriminatory, abusive, defamatory, inappropriate, or confidential material.
I recommend changing the current statement that “Lectito editors never edit reviewer comments.” It is safer and more professional to reserve the right to remove inappropriate material before forwarding reports to authors. The current website says comments are never edited, which is unnecessarily rigid.
Editorial Decisions
After considering the reviewer reports, the handling editor may recommend one of the following decisions:
- Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form, subject only to routine editorial or production requirements.
- Minor Revision: Limited revisions are required before a final publication decision can be made. The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the editor and, where appropriate, returned to one or more reviewers.
- Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by additional reviewers. A decision of Major Revision does not constitute acceptance and does not guarantee eventual publication.
- Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication in Feminist Encounters, or the changes required are too fundamental for continued consideration within the current review process. This resolves the current inconsistency between “Reject and start review process again after major changes” and the more conventional concept of a major revision.
Editorial Authority
Peer-review reports provide expert advice to the editors but do not determine the final editorial decision. The Editor-in-Chief retains final authority concerning the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. Editorial decisions are based on considerations including:
• scholarly quality;
• originality;
• methodological or analytical rigor;
• relevance to the journal;
• reviewer assessments;
• ethical compliance;
• research integrity; and
• the overall contribution of the manuscript.
Editors are not required to follow a reviewer recommendation where they determine that the recommendation is inconsistent with the evidence, journal policy, ethical standards, or the journal's scholarly scope.
Editorial Conflicts of Interest
Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. Where an Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, Editorial Board member, or Guest Editor is an author or contributor to a submission, that individual must have no involvement in the manuscript's editorial assessment, reviewer selection, peer-review process, or final decision. The manuscript will be assigned to an independent qualified editor.
7. Special Issues and Guest-Edited Collections
Manuscripts submitted to special issues or guest-edited collections are subject to the same scholarly, ethical, and peer-review standards as manuscripts submitted to regular issues. Special-issue manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening will normally undergo double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers. Guest Editors may coordinate aspects of the review process, subject to the journal's policies and oversight.
Guest Editors must:
• maintain confidentiality;
• disclose conflicts of interest;
• use independent and appropriately qualified reviewers;
• avoid handling manuscripts where they have a relevant conflict;
• refrain from inappropriate citation practices; and
• comply with the journal's Publication & Ethics Statement.
The Editor-in-Chief retains final editorial oversight and authority over manuscripts published in special issues and guest-edited collections. Guest Editors cannot guarantee acceptance or override the journal's ethical or peer-review requirements. This wording is also consistent with COPE expectations for guest-edited collections.
8. Appeals
Authors who believe that a significant error occurred in the peer-review or editorial decision-making process may submit an appeal.
Appeals should:
• clearly identify the decision being challenged;
• explain the grounds for reconsideration;
• address the principal reviewer or editorial concerns; and
• provide relevant scholarly evidence where appropriate.
An appeal should not merely express disagreement with the editorial decision. Appeals will normally be considered by the Editor-in-Chief or another qualified editor who was not materially involved in the disputed decision where independence is required. An appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be reversed. Where appropriate, additional independent peer review may be sought. Complaints concerning misconduct, editorial procedure, or ethical issues are handled in accordance with the journal's Publication and Ethics Statement.
9. Use of Generative AI in Peer Review
Reviewers and editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts. Confidential manuscripts, abstracts, figures, tables, data, reviewer reports, or other unpublished material must not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative AI systems or third-party AI services where confidentiality, intellectual property, or data security cannot be assured. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, originality, fairness, and integrity of their reports.
Any permitted use of AI must comply with the journal's separate Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy. FEMENC already has a dedicated AI policy addressing authors and editorial use, so cross-linking to it is preferable to creating a conflicting parallel policy.
10. Publication Ethics and Research Integrity
Peer review operates within the journal's broader Publication and Ethics Statement. Questions relating to authorship, competing interests, research ethics, vulnerable populations, confidentiality, data integrity, misconduct, plagiarism, complaints, corrections, retractions, and other ethical matters are governed by the journal's Publication & Ethics Statement and related policies. Where an issue is not specifically addressed, the journal may consult applicable guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
11. Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions at Feminist Encounters are made independently of commercial, financial, institutional, political, or personal influence. The publisher supports the journal's operations but does not determine whether individual manuscripts are accepted or rejected. Article Processing Charges, waiver requests, institutional relationships, advertising, sponsorship, or other financial considerations have no influence on peer-review outcomes or editorial decisions. The Editor-in-Chief retains final editorial authority.