Peer Review Standards

1. Purpose of peer review

Peer review in The Mailer Review exists to ensure scholarly contribution, accuracy, and clarity. As a field journal devoted to the study of Norman Mailer and related contexts, the Review evaluates submissions according to their contribution to ongoing scholarship rather than conformity to particular theoretical schools or methodological fashions.

Peer review is conducted in a spirit of collegial evaluation. Its purpose is to assess fitness for publication, not to reshape submissions into work of a different kind.

2. Review model

The Mailer Review uses a double-blind peer review model for research articles unless otherwise specified.

Review standards are proportional to genre:

  • Research articles: two external reviewers

  • Notes, interviews, and bibliographic work: one external reviewer and editorial review

  • Creative works: editorial review

  • Festschrift or special-issue contributions: modified review appropriate to the genre, with review standards stated explicitly for the volume

All review processes are administered through the journal’s editorial management system. Email may be used for coordination, but editorial actions and decisions are recorded within the system of record.

3. Criteria for evaluation

Reviewers are asked to evaluate submissions according to the following criteria:

  1. Scholarly contribution

    • Does the submission contribute meaningfully to Mailer studies or adjacent scholarly conversations?

    • Does it engage relevant primary and secondary sources?

  2. Argument and evidence

    • Is the central claim or purpose clear?

    • Is the evidence adequate, accurate, and responsibly interpreted?

  3. Scholarly context

    • Does the author demonstrate awareness of prior scholarship?

    • Are points of disagreement framed as scholarly interventions?

  4. Form and clarity

    • Is the submission clearly organized and readable?

    • Are citations sufficient and consistently applied?

Reviewers may comment on style and organization, but substantial rewriting is not expected or requested.

4. Scope of reviewer recommendations

Reviewers provide recommendations, not final decisions. Possible recommendations include:

  • Accept

  • Accept with minor revisions

  • Revise and resubmit

  • Decline

Final publication decisions rest with the Editor, informed by reviewer reports and section editor recommendations.

The Editor reserves the right to discount or override reviews that are unconstructive, unduly hostile, vague, or inconsistent with the journal’s mission.

5. Reviewer conduct and expectations

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain confidentiality

  • Declare conflicts of interest

  • Provide reports that are specific, professional, and focused on the work submitted

Reviewers should not:

  • Rewrite the submission in their own voice

  • Require adherence to particular theoretical frameworks absent scholarly necessity

  • Use the review process to advance personal or disciplinary agendas unrelated to the journal’s scope

6. Timelines and accountability

  • Standard review period: 4–6 weeks

  • Automated or editorial reminders may be issued during the review window

  • If a review is not submitted within a reasonable timeframe, the Editor may reassign the submission

The journal recognizes reviewer labor and may acknowledge reviewers annually.

7. Special volumes and exceptions

For festschrifts, anniversary volumes, or special issues, review standards may be adapted to reflect genre, purpose, and community practice. Any such modifications will be stated clearly in the volume’s editorial materials.

8. Ethical framework

The Mailer Review follows widely recognized best practices for scholarly publishing, including principles articulated by the Committee on Publication Ethics. Concerns regarding ethical conduct, conflicts of interest, or publication integrity are handled by the Editor.

9. Revision of standards

These standards may be revised as editorial practices evolve. Substantive changes will be communicated to editors and reviewers and reflected in public documentation.