Peer Review Process

The peer review process constitutes a crucial stage in the publication flow. It enables authors to improve their manuscripts and assists (guest) editors in making informed decisions regarding submissions. All submitted manuscripts undergo a peer review process before publication.

Mobility Humanities employs a double-blind peer review system. In this system, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are reciprocally concealed from one another. All identifying details that may enable reviewers to recognise the authors are removed from the manuscript before it is sent for review. Likewise, reviewers’ identities are also concealed from the authors when reviewers’ comments are communicated.

Mobility Humanities considers the double-blind peer review system to be an effective method for limiting potential bias on the part of either reviewers or authors. The journal invites at least two reviewers for articles and creative/visual essays, and at least one reviewer for book reviews and introductions.

Mobility Humanities employs a three-stage review process: Editorial Office Screening, Double-blind Peer Review, and Acceptance/Rejection Decision.

The first stage of the review process takes place in the editorial office. Upon submission, each manuscript is reviewed to ensure that it meets the minimum requirements of the journal before it is sent to external reviewers. At this stage, the manuscript is assessed according to the following criteria:

• Plagiarism screening

The manuscript is evaluated to determine its level of similarity to previously published works. Mobility Humanities uses the “Copy Killer” plagiarism detection system for this purpose. Manuscripts that exhibit a high level of similarity to other works (including the authors’ previous publications) may be rejected at this stage. Authors are provided with a similarity report together with the decision to reject the manuscript.

• Scope alignment

The manuscript is evaluated to ensure that its content falls within the scope of the journal selected by the authors. If the content does not fall within the journal’s scope, the authors may be advised to submit the manuscript to a more suitable journal. Such a submission does not imply acceptance by the receiving journal. The manuscript will still remain subject to the receiving journal’s standard peer review process and editorial decision.

• Language quality (British English)

Mobility Humanities publishes articles, creative/visual essays, book reviews, and introductions exclusively in British English. Manuscripts are assessed for structure, organisation, correctness, and clarity in accordance with the journal’s Guidelines for Authors. The editorial office may correct minor grammatical errors where such corrections do not alter the meaning of the manuscript. However, if the language is substantially unclear or difficult to comprehend, the manuscript may be returned to the authors for revision to improve clarity.

• Compliance with research ethics requirements

Manuscripts reporting research involving human participants—including but not limited to interview-based research—is evaluated for compliance with the journal’s Research Ethics policy, including: informed consent procedures, ethical oversight (e.g., IRB approval, where applicable), pseudonymisation of research participants, and measures to protect the privacy and safety of research participants (See Research Ethics).

Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements at this initial stage are returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. This stage is essential, as it allows authors to improve their manuscripts at an early stage of the review process. This editorial office screening process is typically completed within one week of submission.

Once a manuscript successfully completes the editorial office screening, it proceeds to the second stage of the review process, which employs a double-blind peer review system. Reviewers with expertise in the subject area of the manuscript are selected from the journal’s reviewer database or are recommended by guest editors. Editorial board members are not assigned as reviewers for original research articles in order to ensure the independence of the peer review process.

Reviewers are invited to review the manuscript by receiving the abstract for preliminary consideration. Upon accepting the invitation, reviewers are granted access to the full manuscript, in which the identities of the authors have been concealed. Reviewers are required to evaluate the manuscript and provide constructive comments to assist the authors in improving the quality of the manuscript. In addition, reviewers assess the manuscript according to criteria such as originality, contribution to the field, technical quality, clarity, and depth of research. Reviewers are then asked to make one of the following recommendations:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication in its current form.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript is accepted subject to minor revisions suggested by the reviewers.
• Major Revision: The manuscript may be considered for acceptance after the authors satisfactorily address the revisions suggested by the reviewers and/or the (guest) editors and resubmit the revised manuscript.
• Revise for Language Editing: The manuscript is returned to the authors for language revision prior to further consideration.
• Reject: The manuscript is rejected and will not be reconsidered for publication.

It should be noted that even if one reviewer provides a favourable report, a manuscript may be rejected if another reviewer raises concerns that fundamentally undermine the study or its findings.

Upon receipt of the reviewers’ comments, the (guest) editors evaluate the reports and make a preliminary decision. If the reviewers’ comments differ substantially or present conflicting evaluations, the (guest) editors may invite a third reviewer to assess the manuscript. All reviewers’ comments (including those of a third reviewer, where applicable) are subsequently communicated to the authors. The identities of the reviewers remain concealed from the authors.

The time required to complete the second stage depends on the availability and responsiveness of reviewers, as well as the timely and diligent engagement of the authors in improving their manuscript. After receiving the reviewers’ comments, the authors revise the manuscript accordingly and submit a revised version for further consideration. Upon receipt of the revised submission, the (guest) editors proceed with a second—and, where necessary, subsequent—round of peer review by inviting reviewers.

To complete the peer review process, the (guest) editors review the revised manuscript, the reviewers’ comments, and the authors’ responses together, and then make a final decision based on these materials:

• Accept: The revised manuscript is accepted for publication in its current form.
• Reject: The revised manuscript is rejected and will not be reconsidered for publication.

Accepted manuscripts are scheduled for publication. In some cases, even after acceptance, the (guest) editors may request that the authors make additional minor corrections prior to the commencement of the publication process.

1. Mobility Humanities follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) regarding appeals against (guest) editors’ decisions and disputes concerning the editorial management of the peer review process. Appeals and disputes are handled in accordance with COPE guidance and the journal’s established editorial procedures.
2. Queries concerning the peer review process should be directed to the Associate Editor and/or the Mobility Humanities Editorial Office as follows:Associate Editor Jinhyoung Lee (gespenst@konkuk.ac.kr)Mobility Humanities Editorial Office (mobilityhumanities@gmail.com)