KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies is published by the University of Victoria Libraries. We acknowledge and respect the Lək̓ʷəŋən (Songhees and Esquimalt) Peoples on whose territory the university stands, and the Lək̓ʷəŋən and WSÁNEĆ Peoples whose historical relationships with the land continue to this day.
- Reviewers should provide constructive feedback in a collegial manner. They should clearly 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 (for example, suggesting additional sources that the author should cite). We ask that reviewers provide formative feedback even if they deem an article not suitable for publication in the journal.
- Based on their feedback, reviewers are asked to make an overall recommendation to accept the submission, to request revisions, to request revisions and resubmission for another round of peer review, or to decline the submission.
- Personal criticism of the author is not acceptable. Contributors have different linguistic and cultural backgrounds and epistemological frameworks, and authors may be at different stages of their careers, so reviewers should read sensitively. The co-editors-in-chief (hereafter “editors”) reserve the right to redact comments or not pass on comments to authors if the editors consider them to be uncivil and/or inappropriate.
- In an effort to promote more equitable citation practices, we ask that reviewers pay particular attention to authors’ citations and whether it is possible for the author to cite more authors of diverse backgrounds. Submissions should not cite only white or male authors, and we encourage feedback on promoting citational justice.
- Reviewers should keep the review process confidential. They should not disclose any details about the work under review to anyone except the editors.
- If a reviewer has a conflict of interest, they should notify the editors as soon as possible.
- Reviewers should follow the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics.
- All submissions are initially assessed by one of the editors, who decides whether the article fits the scope of the journal and is suitable for review. The editor will review your submission within two weeks of submission, at which point they will contact you to let you know whether your submission is proceeding to peer review (or further editorial review for non-peer-reviewed submissions). Contributors are welcome to suggest potential reviewers in comments to the editors.
- The editor will coordinate peer review of the submission with two scholars who have expertise in relevant subject areas. The review process is anonymous, meaning that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous during the review process. Reviewers' identities are not shared with contributors even after submissions are published.
Please note that the peer review process may take up to four months. We do our best to match submissions with reviewers who have the most relevant expertise and will provide valuable feedback to contributors, but we recognize that peer review relies on uncompensated labour. Reviewers play a crucial role in scholarly communication by giving their time and sharing their expertise while balancing other substantial workloads. We are grateful for their willingness to do this work, and we try to balance our responsibility to authors to process their submissions in a timely fashion with a respect for reviewers’ time. Please be aware of this time frame when submitting to the journal.
- Based on the reviewers’ feedback and recommendations, the editors will decide to accept the submission, to request revisions, to request revisions and resubmission for another round of peer review, or to decline the submission. When the editor contacts contributors with a decision about their submission, they will share editorial recommendations for revisions (which may relate to the content, structure, or style of the submission) in addition to the anonymous peer reviewer feedback. This is the stage at which we will recommend major revisions, if applicable. Please note that submissions that receive “Accept” will still go undergo a thorough editing process.
- Depending on the nature of the revisions we are requesting, we will work with contributors to determine a feasible deadline for them to complete revisions. If there are no major revisions, we typically ask for a turnaround time of four weeks.
Please note that if we do not receive acknowledgement of receipt of the editors’ decision within six weeks, we will consider the submission closed. Similarly, if there is no communication or progress on a submission for a period of six weeks, we will consider the submission closed. The corresponding contributor should monitor their spam folder in case emails from OJS land there. This rule is simply to ensure that the journal does not have submissions of indeterminate status.