Reviewer Guidelines
Thank you for your interest in reviewing for the Journal of Black Military Studies. As a new, interdisciplinary journal, JBMS seeks to build a diverse community in global Black “military” studies, broadly defined. We cover a wide-ranging field of global Black military studies from its earliest phases to the more recent past. Topics include war, armed conflict, resistance, and military participation.
Our Approach
We welcome reviewers with varying perspectives and believe that this variety enriches understanding of and enhances scholarship about Black military studies. Since JBMS is unique in its discussion of the Black military experience as an emerging discipline—one distinct from the field of military history— we assign two reviewers with differing expertise or personal experience to provide peer reviews of each manuscript. The result is a more thorough, balanced evaluation of the authors’ work.
Reviewers are selected based on the subject matter of each submission and the contributions that each reviewer will bring to the journal’s conversation of Black military studies. For example, a “military” scholar in history or literature, employed at a university, might review a Black women’s military experience manuscript alongside an essayist who explores gender-related subjects. Each manuscript that undergoes peer review will be reviewed by at least one reviewer with an advanced degree. This requirement maintains high levels of academic rigor while including the valuable contributions of highly qualified, non-academic experts who may not necessarily work in academia.
Scholarly manuscripts may be deemed suitable for publication after completing peer review. JBMS is under no obligation to publish any submitted manuscript.
Qualifications for Reviewers
JBMS welcomes both academic and non-academic reviewers who have expertise in the submission’s subject area. Reviewers do not need to be affiliated with an academic institution. Academic reviewers must hold a terminal degree in their field. Examples include, but are not limited to:
Academic reviewers: Post-doctoral fellows who have had at least one peer-reviewed work published in a publicly accessible book or journal; faculty or emeritus faculty from a college or university; a secondary school teacher with an MFA or Ph.D.
Non-academic reviewers: Veterans or active military members, unit historians, public historians, curators (on a case-by-case basis for creative work submissions), family members and others with lived Black military experience.
Two experts in the subject matter review each submission. While two academic reviewers may be selected to provide reviews of the same manuscript, each manuscript will always be assigned to at least one academic reviewer.
Reviewer Responsibilities
JBMS acknowledges the valuable contributions of time and expertise that our reviewers provide, as well as the time and care our authors put into their submissions.When agreeing to provide a peer review of a JBMS manuscript, reviewers should:
Recognize that not all authors may have formal training. Our interdisciplinary approach to Black military studies welcomes a variety of submissions; our diamond open access model allows authors of all backgrounds, both academic and non-academic, to submit their work—and to publish it, if accepted—without gatekeeping or fees. Review with kindness and provide examples that will help authors deepen their research, improve their writing, and inspire them to continue.
Remember that reviews provide an opportunity to nurture developing as well as accomplished scholars. Peer review reports should use an encouraging tone and provide constructive criticism. Lead with the submission’s positives, followed by critiques and specific suggestions for improvements, and wrap up with words of encouragement. Be rigorous as well as considerate.
Take the time to read thoughtfully and thoroughly. We understand that committing to a review adds to your already-busy professional schedule. If you need more time to consider a manuscript, or would like to review but cannot do so within the given eight-week timeframe, contact the submission’s associate editor to discuss adjusting your review deadline.
For a list of ethical policies associated with peer review, please see the Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement.
Review Procedures
Double Anonymized Peer Review
This journal uses double anonymized peer review, as defined by the National Information Standards Organization:
Identity transparency: double anonymized. Reviewer identity is not made visible to author, author identity is not made visible to reviewer, reviewer and author identity is visible to decision-making editor.
Reviewer interacts with: editor. Communication between editor and reviewer (traditional model). Also known as ‘independent review’.
Review information published: None. No information about the review process or editorial decision process is published.
Post-publication commenting: None.
Your review comments will be shared anonymously with the manuscript’s author for the purpose of improving and refining the work. Private comments may be made directly to the Editors and will not be shared.
Review Workflow
Each submitted manuscript is screened by the Managing and Production Editor for adherence to submission guidelines and undergoes a SimilarityCheck through Crossref. This information is forwarded, along with the manuscript, to the Editor-in-Chief for initial consideration. If deemed suitable for peer review, an assigned Associate Editor invites two independent experts to review the manuscript. Each reviewer completes a form with guiding questions and opportunities for narrative responses. After peer review reports are received, the Editor-in Chief and Associate Editor discuss the results, agree on a final decision, and notify the author. Reviewers are notified upon publication of work they have reviewed.