Common ground has a nine-step publication process. Each step is managed through CGPublisher, our pathbreaking conference and journal management software. You do not need to be a member of the New Directions in the Humanities knowledge community to submit an article, but if your article is accepted for publication, you must join the knowledge community to proceed.
Authors who submit an article to the journal are requested to review up to three other submitted articles over a 12-month period. These articles may come from the current or subsequent volumes of the journal or other knowledge communities.
All peer reviewers are credited as Associate Editors in the volume of the journal to which they contribute.
As an initial submission step, you must first have an accepted proposal for either in-person presentation at the International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities or, if not attending the conference, for Article Submission. You will receive an email when your proposal has been reviewed.
If you have an accepted proposal, you may submit an article for potential publication. Article submissions must follow our Author Guidelines. To submit your article, please click the button below to login to your CGPublisher. If you experience difficulty submitting your article, you may click here for detailed instructions or send your article to firstname.lastname@example.org.
By submitting an article for potential publication, you agree to review up to three other submitted articles over a 12-month period. These articles may come from the current or subsequent volumes of the or from other knowledge communities. Once assigned to an article, we request that you complete your report within two weeks.
Once we have received your article submission, our Publishing Department will review the submission to ensure that it meets our submission guidelines. If the submission does not meet our guidelines, you will receive a notification of initial submission rejection and be offered a two-week period to revise the article. If your article does meet our submission guidelines, it will enter our peer review process.
Common Ground Publishing offers an anonymous peer review process wherein we do not provide identifying information about the author or reviewers. Each article is assigned to two peer reviewers who are either authors in one of Common Ground's knowledge communities or who have volunteered to serve as peer reviewers. Once assigned to an article, reviewers are requested to follow our Peer Review Guidelines and to complete reports within two weeks. Articles will be assessed by reviewers against five criteria—or fewer, if some criteria do not apply to a particular kind of article.
The peer review process will result in one of three possible publication recommendations: acceptance for publication in the journal; acceptance pending revisions and the submission of a change note; or rejection. If your article is rejected, you may resubmit a revised version with a change note for review by new reviewers. Articles that reviewers reject may only be resubmitted once.
If your article has been recommended for publication either with or without revisions, we will then confirm that you are a member of the New Directions in the Humanities knowledge community. If you are attending the International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities, an in-person registration will include community membership. If you are not attending the conference, we offer a Non-Attending Membership. you may find more information on our Membership page. Please click the button below to join the knowledge community.
Before we can continue the publication process, you will need to accept Common Ground’s Publishing Agreement. This document lays out the conditions under which Common Ground will publish your article.
Once you have accepted the Publishing Agreement, you will have two weeks to submit the final version of your article. All final article submissions must be made in Common Ground's Journal Article Template. Your article will not be typeset until it has been properly formatted. It is important that you thoroughly proofread and edit the final version of your article before uploading it to CGPublisher.
If your article was recommended for acceptance, all you will need to submit is the final version of your article in the Journal Article Template. However, if your article was accepted with revisions, we ask that you use the change note to respond to reviewer critiques and detail the changes you have made to your article. This change note should then be included as the first page of your revised article submission. In some circumstances we may return the change note to reviewers. Please note, per Common Ground’s Publishing Agreement, whether your article is recommended for acceptance or acceptance pending revisions, the final publication decision will be reached only after a review of the final submission of your article.
If your peer reviewers or the editorial team determine that your article needs to be edited before publication, it is your responsibility to arrange to have your work edited. You may choose to have an outside editor review your work or to use Common Ground’s editing services. This service is not mandatory for publication in a Common Ground journal. Using this service does not guarantee acceptance for publication, nor are you obliged to submit your edited manuscript to a Common Ground journal.
Once we have received your final submission, our Publishing Department will prepare a typeset proof for your review. We will send you an email when there is a proof available. At that time, you will have the opportunity to either accept the proof or request revisions. In order to expedite publication, the proof review process is limited to two rounds of revision. Please note that proof acceptance is final, so you should check the proof thoroughly.
Soon after you accept your typeset proof, we will add your article to our Online Bookstore. Full issues of the journal will follow at regular intervals and be available in both print and electronic formats.
Peer reviewers are requested to observe the following guidelines:
1. Feedback: The main focus of your report should be constructive comments that will assist the author as they rewrite their article. Your suggestions and feedback are valuable, even for the very best of articles and when you recommend publication. In the case that articles you are recommending should be rejected, it is particularly important that you make suggestions about how this article might be rewritten or a different kind of article addressing similar themes might be written for resubmission to this or a different journal. All comments should be constructively directed, advising the author of next steps.
2. Expertise: Articles are not always sent to a reviewer whose field is identical to the subject matter of that article. You don’t have to be precisely qualified in a field to be a constructive reviewer. In fact, an excellent article will speak beyond its narrowly defined field. If, however, an article is so distant from your field that you do not feel qualified to judge its merits, please notify the publishing manager for the journal, who will locate another reviewer.
3. Confidentiality: Reviewers receive unpublished work, which must be treated as confidential until published. They should destroy all electronic or printed copies of the draft article and review report only after they have received confirmation that their reports have been received by the Managing Editor (in case we can’t open the report files you send us). Reviewers must not disclose to others which articles they have reviewed; nor are they to share those articles with any other person until published, and then only in the final published version.
4. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest or any other factor which may affect the independence of their review—when for instance, they know the identity of the author or where they have received an article representing a position they oppose vehemently. In cases of conflict of interest, please notify the publishing manager of your inability to review a particular article.
5. Intellectual Merit: An article must be judged on its intellectual merits alone. Personal criticism or criticism based solely on the political or social views of the reviewer, is not acceptable. Critical or negative judgments must be fully supported by detailed reference to evidence from the article under review or other relevant sources.
6. Plagiarism and Copyright: If a reviewer considers that an article may contain plagiarized material or that it might breach another party’s copyright, they should notify the publishing department for the journal, providing the relevant links or references to support their claim.
7. Deadline: Reviewers are asked to return their reports within two weeks. This assists us to provide rapid feedback to the author. If you are unable to meet this deadline, please contact us immediately on receipt of the article for review.