Common Ground Research Networks

Common Ground Research Networks uses a constructive, criteria-based peer review process for journal articles. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the scholarly quality of each article, offer practical feedback for the author, and provide scores across shared review criteria.

Peer review is part of our wider knowledge community. Reviewers should be respectful, professional, and specific. The goal is not only to judge whether an article is publishable, but to help authors strengthen the contribution, evidence, clarity, and relevance of their work.

Reviewers should provide a written response and score for each review category. Feedback should be clear, constructive, and supported by concrete examples from the article. Reviewers should focus on the scholarly content, argument, evidence, concepts, implications, and communication of the article. They should not focus on formatting or house style, except where language or presentation affects the reader’s ability to understand the work.

Reviews should be conducted independently, professionally, and in confidence. The journal uses a double-blind peer review process, meaning that authors are not told the identities of reviewers and reviewers should not seek to identify the authors of the manuscript. Reviewers should not share, circulate, quote from, or use the manuscript or review materials outside the review process.

Reviewers should decline or disclose any potential conflict of interest. This may include a personal, professional, institutional, supervisory, financial, or collaborative relationship with the author, if known or suspected. If a reviewer believes they may recognize the author or the work, they should notify the editorial team before proceeding.

Reviewers may be members of the journal’s Reviewer Network, Editorial Board, or wider scholarly community. However, editorial responsibility remains separate from the review process. Reviewers provide recommendations and feedback, while final decisions about acceptance, revision, or rejection are made by the journal’s editorial leadership, normally the Editor or Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers are also asked to be alert to possible problems with plagiarism, citation integrity, and research transparency. This includes checking whether the article gives proper credit to existing scholarship, whether cited sources appear credible and relevant, and whether claims are supported by appropriate evidence. If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, fabricated citations, misused sources, or unsupported claims, they should explain the concern clearly and professionally in the review.

Community Review Model

Common Ground journals operate through a scholarly community model in which authors, reviewers, editors, and Research Network members contribute to the shared work of knowledge development. As part of this model, authors may be invited to serve as peer reviewers for other manuscripts submitted to the journal or Research Network.

This reciprocal review model supports a wider culture of scholarly exchange. Authors benefit from receiving constructive feedback on their own work, and they also contribute to the quality and integrity of the publication process by reviewing the work of others. Review activity is considered a professional contribution to the field and to the Research Network community.

Author-reviewers are only asked to review manuscripts where they have appropriate scholarly knowledge and no conflict of interest. They should not review work by colleagues, collaborators, students, supervisors, close professional contacts, or anyone whose identity they believe they may know. If a potential conflict exists, the reviewer should notify the editorial team and decline the review.

All author-reviewers are expected to follow the same standards as other reviewers. Reviews must be independent, confidential, constructive, and focused on the scholarly quality of the manuscript. Participation as an author or community member does not influence editorial decisions on that person’s own manuscript.

Reviewers provide recommendations and feedback, but final decisions about acceptance, revision, or rejection are made by the journal’s editorial leadership. This separation helps preserve editorial independence while allowing the Research Network community to participate in the peer review process.