Surveillance & Society
Guidelines for Referees

1. General Points:

I. Please send your review on the form provided, as an e-mail attachment. Please make sure that your document is virus-free! You can also find a copy of the form: refform.doc or refform.txt, and these guidelines: guidelines.doc or guidelines.txt, on the website. 

II. We would be very grateful for a fast turnaround (no more than one month) to allow time for corrections and resubmission if necessary (each issue has a three month lead-in period). If you are unable to do this, or have any questions or concerns, please contact us as soon as possible. 

III. Surveillance & Society believes in anonymous refereeing. We do not allow the identity of the author to be revealed to the referees, or that of the referees to the author. In case that you are able determine the identity of the author, please do not attempt to contact the author directly. If you feel the author might benefit from further discussion or advice once the review is completed, the Editors will contact them on your behalf and put them in touch with you. 

2. Recommendation. There are six possible verdicts on any paper. The first three mean that you will not be required to see the paper again. The fourth means a resubmission to referees, the fifth and sixth are rejections. If you are unsure, err on the side of acceptance, but indicate your uncertainty in the confidential comments for the Editors. 

I. Publish with only routine editing. Acceptance at this level means that really only proofing need to be done for the piece to be worthy of publication.

II. Accept but ask author to make minor changes as noted. The piece is worthy of publication, but there are some minor issues to be cleared up, for example, lack of reference to a particular author or argument which might make a very good argument into a watertight one, some questionable statements that need justification or elimination, or digressions that would be better as footnotes or removed altogether. 

III. Accept, but ask the author to make major changes to be checked by the Editors. There article makes a general argument that is worthy of publication and most of the paper is good, but it needs some more work to make it to the standard required, for example: a new section to explain a nationally-specific policy to which the piece make reference; or major clarification of the argument in a particular section of the paper; or a simple restructuring of the paper. However the changes are not so substantial as to require rewriting and re-refereeing, and the Editors will check that the necessary revisions have been made.

IV. Ask the author to make substantial changes and resubmit to referees. In this case, again the paper is generally good, but there are either: serious theoretical omissions that require new reading and reworking of the argument; poor writing or structural problems that require a complete rewrite; and so on. In this case the piece will have to be resubmitted for refereeing. 

V. Reject. The piece just is not of the standard required. This does not means that a piece by the same author on the topic could not be accepted in the future, so please be encouraging if you think it is worth it! Please remember that Surveillance & Society is an open, innovative and interdisciplinary journal, and the following are not in themselves reasons for rejection:

a. Nonconformity with academic convention. We welcome pieces that approach surveillance in experimental form. Referees must of course balance this with the value of the content.

b. Lack of expertise in every possible field on which the piece touches. Interdisciplinary pieces which cover many disciplinary fields may be relatively lacking in some areas, however we would rather that these were addressed in subsequent debate than for innovative approaches to be rejected. The Editors understand that this is a difficult balance, and area always willing to discuss troublesome pieces with referees. 

c. Clear disciplinarity. Although Surveillance & Society is interdisciplinary, this does not mean that every piece published within it must be so. The journal is as much a forum for the exchange of ideas between disciplines as a vehicle for new interdisciplinary research, and there is very little genuinely interdisciplinary research.

d. ‘Bad’ politics. Surveillance & Society, whilst critical and encouraging of dissent and debate, and clearly rejecting any discriminatory or abusive contributions, does not delineate the political form of response. Lack of agreement with any political argument being made cannot constitute reason for rejection – the argument must be judged on its coherence, and any counter argument made in a response submitted for publication to the journal. 

VI. Paper not suitable for Surveillance and Society but may be appropriate for an alternative journal (please suggest). The piece isn’t really about surveillance / social control etc. and has either been given a superficial spin to suggest that it is, or has simply been submitted under the impression that this is a different journal! Please try to give helpful suggestions as to where it might be submitted (if you can). Generally, the Editors will not send such pieces out for refereeing in the first place, so it is unlikely that you will receive such a piece.

3. The Assessment Grid. This is designed as much to help you as to help us. It is not a ‘scorecard’ which you can add up to make an overall grade. It may be for example that a piece which you decide has very little theoretical relevance but high policy relevance (or vice-versa) is accepted. Clearly some categories are more important that others: a piece may be highly entertaining but so irrelevant that it cannot be accepted, however in an ideal situation a piece would be entertaining in addition to making the academic grade. And, as stressed above, a piece may be highly nonconformist or unconventional, but make a huge contribution to knowledge. 

4. Confidential Comments for the Editors (not the Author). The Report Form contains space for a confidential report to the Editors and a Report for Authors. Please do not confuse them!

I. Please give attention to both the academic content and, if possible, issues of proofing (spelling, grammar etc.). We are not a commercial journal so as much input on proofing as you are able to give is genuinely helpful and time-saving. 

II. You can also make comments that are less ‘constructive’ than those for the authors themselves. We want your honest opinion, though please bear in mind the points below.

5. Comments for the Author. Please bear in mind that this is the only part of the report that will be seen by the author.

I. Maximum Length. Please aim to write no more than 1000 words, unless there are very specific areas that you feel need more detailed discussion.

II. Minimum Length. Except in the case of unconditional (or near unconditional) acceptance, the Editors will expect reports that give full explanations for the judgements expressed. Criticisms must be supported by evidence, and over-brief or casual reports will not be acceptable. 

III. Language and Tone. Surveillance & Society expects direct and robust reviews but also respect for all contributors. The tone of reports for authors should therefore always be constructive and not resort to discriminatory or abusive language, or inappropriate style, for example sarcasm or the promotion of personal agendas.

We hope you find these guidelines useful. Surveillance & Society aims to be difference from conventional journals and take on board constructive criticism from referees and authors. If you would like any further assistance or have any suggestions for improvement, please contact the Editors via: d.f.j.wood@ncl.ac.uk