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 Yui, the MAQ Editorial Assistant, at email@example.com.
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.
At MAQ, we believe that peer review should be an act of collegiality and mentorship, and we insist that reviewers ask themselves the following questions before submitting reviews:
- Is my review useful, or just critical? You may feel free to recommend “Reject” “Major Revisions,” “Accept pending Appropriate Revisions,” or “Accept.” Because MAQ’s acceptance rate is low (in 2021, just over 13%), even negative reviews should be written in such a way that, whatever the final decision, the author can use them to improve their work. This means that at all times, reviewers should endeavor to work with the ideas that authors present.
- Is my review respectful of author anonymity? Reviewers should never assume that they know the identity or positionality of the author. Reviews premised on assumptions about the gender, race, sexuality, or other characteristics of the author will not be acceptable.
- Would I want to receive a review like this? Sometimes, reviewers have to be frank, and honesty of assessment is important. Language that is aggressive, dismissive, disrespectful, or otherwise unconstructive, however, will not be tolerated.
- Are women, scholars of color, Indigenous scholars, and scholars from the country or countries discussed cited? If not at all, or not enough, how might such work be meaningfully integrated into the manuscript under review? The journal is committed to scholarship that seeks to undo the structures of white supremacy, and (settler) colonialism. We aim to provide space for antiracist and anticolonial praxis, and we are committed to amplifying the voices and perspectives of underrepresented scholars from around the globe, including in our practices of publication, citation, and circulation. We expect authors to be mindful of whose work they choose to cite, and therefore recirculate, whose work they choose not to, and what forms of racialized and gendered inequity they may reproduce or challenge through those choices.
We strive to provide authors with a rapid turnaround and so ask you to complete your review within four 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 catalog all problems in grammar, usage, and spelling.
Please also 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 provide enough detail about methods 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.