Cappelen Damm AS, Nordic Open Access Scholarly Publishing (NOASP)

Nordic Open Access Scholarly Publishing (NOASP) is a scholarly publisher whose aim is to publish work of high academie quality. All of our Open Access books, both monographs and anthologies, are subject to peer review.

Peer review process

Book proposals are first reviewed by the appropriate editorial hoard of Cappelen Damm Akademisk to ascertain whether they are suitable for publication. The editorial board consists of internal editors and includes at least one editor with research competence and one editor with expertise in the relevant subject area.

If deemed suitable, the manuscript is then subject to forma) peer review. Where authors have suggested reviewers, editors may contact these individuals if the suggestions are reasonable and the editor is confident that no competing interests are present (e.g. the reviewer is a colleague in the same department, or has been in a student-supervisor or co-author situation with the submitting authors within the last 5 years, or is someone within the authors’ research network). We follow a single-blind peer review process; neither the authors nor the book’s editors are informed of the identity of the peers.

In reviewing the manuscript, peers are asked to take the following points into consideration with respect to each article:

  1. The article presents new knowledge and is original (the author’ s own and not previously published)
  2. The standard of scholarship presented (viz. findings, methodology, interpretations) is acceptable
  3. The article is well structured, and subject matter, theories, methodologies, findings and interpretations are coherently and clearly formulated and presented
  4. References are sufficiently provided and complete in both the text and in the reference list
  5. The article’s English abstract is sufficiently informative and descriptive of the content
  6. The article’s title is adequately descriptive of the content
  7. The subject of the article is aligned with that of the anthology as a whole

Authors are sent anonymised copies of referee comments. Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts taking into account the referee comments and suggestions. In most instances where an author disagrees with recommendations and does not wish to comply with them, the editors of the book discuss and resolve the matter. In more complex cases, where the author and editors disagree about significant portions of the content, the manuscript may be resubmitted for peer review.

On receipt of the author’s revision, the editors determine whether the revised manuscript is ready for pub1ication or should be returned to referees for a final vetting before a decision can be made.