Publishing rigorously and independently peer reviewed knowledge since 1984.

At a Glance

30+

Founded in 1984, we have been curating conferences and publishing journals for over 30 years, and are committed to principals of access, participation, and equality.

72%

72% of our journals are indexed by Scopus. The remaining 28% are new titles currently under review (2015).

20,000+

Over 20,000 articles published in our journals. Common Ground Research Networks strives to be at the leading edge in the investigations of the critical questions of our time. Our areas of innovation: new media, food and urban studies, aging, sustainability, and climate change.

Our Model

We are working to change the way in which knowledge is valued. Rather than focusing solely on rejection rates and citation counts—a standard which is seriously fraught—we measure quality by a criterion-referenced peer review process, measuring the intellectual excellence and accessibility of the work against clearly articulated disciplinary standards.

Open Review

Our approach to peer review is open and inclusive, and at the same time as it is based on the most rigorous and merit-based anonymous peer review processes. What makes us different is that those who write for our journals and present at our conferences also serve as peer reviewers, creating a sustainable cycle of high-quality feedback. Reviewers are assigned on the basis of subject matter and disciplinary expertise. Ranking is based on clearly articulated criteria. The result is a peer review process that is scrupulously fair in its assessments, and at the same time offers a carefully structured and constructive contribution to the shape of the published paper.

Intellectual Excellence

The result of open review is a publishing process which is without prejudice to institutional affiliation, stage in career, national origins or disciplinary perspective. If the paper is excellent, and has been systematically and independently assessed as such, it will be published. This is why our journals are filled with exciting new material. While many articles originate from well-known research institutions, a considerable amount of brilliantly insightful and innovative material is contributed by academics in lesser known institutions in the developing world, emerging researchers, people working in hard-to-classify interdisciplinary spaces and researchers in liberal arts colleges and teaching universities.

Accessibility

We believe there are limitations in both the high-cost commercial publishing and status-quo open access publishing models. Our alternative is to work towards a low-cost commercial approach to academic publishing. Our desire is to find a practical middle ground between the idealism of open access and the inefficiencies and high-costs of the big journal publishers. One such initiative is our Hybrid Open Access model. Meanwhile, we ensure non-open access content remains highly accessible through modest subscription charges for libraries and a small per-article charge for electronic access by non-subscribers. We also make all of our journals available in both print and electronic formats, with new content available online as soon as it is ready for publication.

Participatory

Common Ground Research Networks takes seriously the “peer” of peer review. Articles published in our journals are reviewed by scholars, who are active members our Research Networks. Reviewers may be past or present conference delegates, fellow submitters to the collection, or scholars who have volunteered to review articles (and have been screened by our editorial team). This engagement with the research network, as well as our criterion-referenced evaluation system, distinguishes our peer review process from journals that have a more editor-centric approach to review. Reviewers are assigned to papers based on their academic interests and scholarly expertise. In recognition of the valuable feedback and publication recommendations that they provide, reviewers are acknowledged as Associate Editors in the volume that includes the article(s) they reviewed.

Members of ...