Peer Review

All submissions are initially assessed by one of the co-editors in chief, who decides whether or not the article fits the scope of the journal and is suitable for review. Research articles, methods articles, teaching reflections, and commentaries then undergo peer review. Project reports, artistic contributions, and conversations undergo editorial review. 

Research articles, methods articles, teaching reflections, and commentaries are reviewed by two independent experts, who assess the submission for relevance, clarity, validity, and methodology. KULA employs anonymous peer review, meaning that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous during the review process. Reviewers' identities are not shared with authors even after submission are published. 

Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback even if a submission is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal, and they are expected to provide constructive comments in a collegial way. They should clearly and objectively identify areas in the submission that require improvement (e.g., flow of argument, quality of writing, gaps in citation, etc.) and, where possible, offer suggestions for how to improve the manuscript (e.g., suggesting additional sources that the author should cite).

Personal criticism of the author is not acceptable. Authors have different linguistic and cultural backgrounds and epistemological frameworks, and authors may be at different stages of their careers, so reviewers should recognize that they may need to read sensitively. KULA reserves the right to redact comments or not pass on comments to authors if the editors consider them to be uncivil and/or inappropriate. 

Reviewers are expected to keep the review process confidential. They should not disclose any details about the work under review to anyone except the editors in chief.

Reviewers are expected to follow the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics. 

Based on the reviewer reports, the co-editors in chief will make a decision to decline the submission, to request revisions, to request revisions and resubmission for another round of peer review, or to accept the submission.