See the database TUHAT for a complete list of publications by the Aleksanteri staff!

Research database TUHAT

Buy a Book

Publish in Kikimora

Head of Publishing
Elina Kahla (on leave)

Sales
aleksanteri [at] helsinki.fi

Aleksanteri Institute
P.O.Box 42 (Unioninkatu 33)
FI-00014 University of Helsinki

Telephone: +358 (0) 2941 23544

aleksanteri [at] helsinki.fi
firstname.lastname [at] helsinki.fi

Location & Connections

 

Guidelines for Referees

All manuscripts submitted in Kikimora Publications’ three refereed series go through a double-blind peer review by at least two reviewers. A publication decision is made only after the referee process, carefully following whether the referees’ comments and suggestions for improvement have been taken into account. 

Confidentiality and tone of review

  • Reviewing is to be conducted confidentially, respecting the author and being objective about the work presented for scrutiny. Possible critical points should be presented constructively, even if the work is not recommended to be accepted for publication. It is important to provide fruitful feedback for the author to be able to improve his work later.

The purpose of the review is to:

  • Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
  • Identify and specify points of development in the manuscript / in the articles comprising an edited volume, making suggestions as to how the problems might be addressed.
  • Comment on the book’s position in and importance for the field.

Reviewers should also address in their commentary the following questions:

  • Does the text present its content clearly and support its conclusions (both monographies and articles in edited volumes)?
  • Does the manuscript succeed in addressing the aim of the edited volume?
  • How does the manuscript address its methodology and theory? Choice of methods/theories? Balance?
  • Is there relevant research that has not been cited or taken into account in the work/article?
  • Is the structure clear and concise? What about the titles and subtitles? Does the conclusion present the findings clearly and concisely?
  • Are the references accurate and formed according to the Kikimora Publications style sheet? Is the language accurate?

Structure of the review:

Summary
To begin with, please present a brief summary of the manuscript, concentrating on the claims made in it, their justification and whether they are founded. Also consider the conclusions of the book along the same lines. The summary will provide the authors and editors important feedback about how clear the manuscript is at this point, and suggestions on how to perhaps improve it come in the following in your review. Please keep the tone of the review positive and encouraging.

Comments (major)
Your comments should be separated into 'major' and 'minor' points in order to give the author feedback on what is most important to develop further. Please relate your major points to the importance and relevance of the article, the validity of the methodology in it, as well as the impact and credibility of the conclusions drawn in it. It is vital that you recommend in your review whether the article should be:

1) Accepted without revision.
2) Accepted with slight revision.
3) Needs to be resubmitted with major revision.
4) Rejected.

Comments (minor)
If applicable, you may also in your review indicate some more detailed improvements and changes to the manuscript. However, please be clear about which suggestions are major and which are minor, in order for your review to be as useful for the author(s) as possible!