After a preliminary examination by the editors, suitable articles and research papers as well as research reports are subject to a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of the authors and the reviewers will not be revealed to each other. The editors, aided by the advisory board, chose two reviewers. In case of opposed results, the editors may call in a third reviewer. Based upon the peer-reviewers’ conclusions, final decisions whether or in what form an article will be published are left to the editors’ discretion.

General Guidelines

As a transdisciplinary journal, transfer addresses reviewers from a multitude of disciplines to make sure that articles meet high quality standards suitable to all the academic subjects represented. At the same time, transfer aims at promoting academic exchange and scholarly conversation across disciplinary borders. Hence, in addition to demanding high academic standards, the editorial board expects submissions to be intelligible to a multi-disciplinary audience. Therefore, reviewers should also help to assess in how far manuscripts, especially if they offer very subject-specific terminology and methods, are reasonably accessible to a scholarly readership spanning over various disciplines.

• Please use the review form, which the editorial board will send to you after you have accepted to conduct the review. Please lay open any potential conflicts of interest. By purposefully determining reviewers we try to ensure an effective double-blind peer-review process. Yet occasionally reviewers recognise the work of particular authors prohibiting an impartial review. In those cases, you should disqualify yourself and instantly notify the editorial board.
  
  
• Manuscripts are strictly confidential. Never forward or share any yet unpublished articles, papers or related material without the explicit permission of the author nor without informing the editorial board.
  
  
• If, after having accepted a review, you should notice that certain parts or aspects of the manuscript are outside your expertise, please inform the editorial board to avoid blind spots within the review process. Depending on the case, the editorial board may decide to call in a third reviewer supplementing your expertise where necessary.
  
  
• Please do not identify yourself or your institution. Do not give any hints at your own work or the place you work at.
  
  
• Please cite the correct page numbers when referring to specific sections of the manuscript.
  
  
• Please always provide enough detail for the author to understand why you make a certain recommendation. Give specific citations to help the author find the literature you are referencing.
  
  
• Even if you think a manuscript is seriously flawed, try to give the author suggestions as to how it might be improved. Also, be sure to identify the strengths of a paper, and consider whether and how those strengths might be salvaged.

Recommendations

Reviewers are asked to provide a recommendation expressing their overall evaluation of the article at the top of the review form. This recommendation will guide the editors to one of four decisions:

   “I recommend this article for publication in transfer without any revisions.” 

   “I recommend this article for publication in transfer with minor revisions.”
In this case, you should provide detailed information, under (3) within the review form, what minor changes you deem necessary to guarantee the academic quality of the article.

    “I recommend this article to be resubmitted to peer-review after major revisions.”
Suggestions for major revisions should be provided with detailed information as well, under (2) and (3) within the review form.

    “I do not recommend this article for publication.”
If you recommend the rejection of an article, it is very important to give impartial reasons and evidence to base your decision on. The editors will need detailed and intelligible information to precisely understand your concerns when they deliberate on making a final decision. You should note these under (2) within the review form.

Deadlines

Please try to meet the deadlines given below. If you cannot meet the deadline, let the editorial board know as soon as possible when to expect your review.

Authors will be notified whether an article is approved for publication within 6 months from submission.

Reviews are requested within 2 months from the reviewer’s acceptance.