Oxford University Press

Peer review procedure

OUP undertakes a process of peer review for all scholarly publishing. This process can vary on a title by title basis according to the needs of a proposal but there is a basic standard framework.

For monographs, the author’s proposal, plus any draft or final materials, are sent for blind review by appropriate external experts. Occasionally, and sometimes at the request of proposing authors, we will undertake a double-blind peer review process. We would normally secure a minimum of two peer reviews for a standard and straightforward monograph proposal but in more complex cases this number will increase.

Peer review comments may be collated and redacted as required in order to provide coherent feedback for the proposing author. The author is then asked to respond to the peer reviews and address any issues or take up or respond to any suggestions which may have been made. At this stage, depending on the review comments and the extent to which they are recognised and valued by the proposing author, the scope and structure of a proposal might be subject to significant revision. Depending on the significance of any concerns or recommendations raised by reviewers, or the amount of revision made to a proposal by a prospective author, there may be one or more further iterations of review and feedback, either with the original peer reviewers or with new reviewers as well if a fresh perspective on a reworked proposal is required.

Once the peer review process has been concluded satisfactorily a proposal must be submitted for approval at the Delegates’ Meeting where representatives of different disciplines will further review a proposed title to assess its quality and suitability for publication by the Press.