Guidelines for Reviewers

Review Process

MAQ uses a web-based manuscript submission and peer review tracking system. Once you log on, please click on the Reviewer Center to view the manuscript and submit your review. You can also search key library databases within the peer review system. If you have any difficulty, please contact us at maq-editor@americananthro.org.

We use double-blind peer review at MAQ. That is, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout peer review. Please treat manuscripts under review as confidential. You should not share the manuscript with anyone else or disclose that it is under review, and when you complete your review, please dispose of the manuscript. You may, of course, retain a copy of your review.

We strive to provide authors with a rapid turnaround and so ask you to complete your review within three weeks. Your participation in peer review is vital to the integrity of the process, and we appreciate the time and effort you spend on this collegial task.

Preparing Your Review

Please prepare a narrative review that we can share (anonymously) with the author. The most helpful reviews are 1–2 pages in length, deal with concepts central to the paper, discuss whether the paper meets its own aims, and assess the paper’s contribution to medical anthropology or neighboring disciplines. It is not necessary to copy-edit or catalogue all problems in grammar, usage, and spelling.

Please consider the following questions when preparing your review:

  • How well does the article fit with MAQ’s aims and scope?
  • How well are theory and data linked? Does the paper present sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims?
  • What new theoretical or empirical contribution does the paper make?
  • How well does the paper advance a conversation in medical anthropology or neighboring disciplines? Does it contribute beyond what is already known?
  • Does the paper engage with relevant literatures in medical anthropology and neighboring disciplines? Are the citations judicious and on point?
  • Does the paper provide enough detail about how the data were collected to understand the results and interpretation?
  • Does the organization of the paper advance the author’s argument? Is the thread of the argument carried throughout the paper?
  • Does the paper consider potential limitations of the data, analysis, or interpretation?
  • Are the mechanics of the paper adequate? Is the language and sentence structure clear and concise?

Submitting Your Review

Please logon to your Reviewer Center to make a recommendation (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject) and enter your comments to the author. You have the option of adding confidential comments that only the Editor will see, but it is not necessary to do so.