Information For Reviewers

---

• Reviewers should correspond with the editor-in-chief of Limina at: editor@limina.uapstudies.org or with the editor assigned to the paper under your review.
• Reviewers should keep in mind the the detailed discussion of manuscript submission types that Limina accepts.
• Please note: in keeping with our strict double-blind peer-review process, all referees and external readers on each ms. submission will be anonymous, meaning that their names will not be disclosed to the authors of any manuscript submission, either during the review process itself, or once the paper is published by Limina.
• All articles will be reviewed through a rigorous double-blind review process. (Please see the information about our overall editorial process.)
• Articles submitted to Limina for review should adhere to the highest standards of academic scholarship, but, in light of the interdisciplinary nature of the journal, standards relevant for the field within which the article is conceived should be the standards to which a reviewer holds that article.
• All articles are assumed to be their authors' original and elsewhere unpublished work. However, all submissions will be, as a matter of course, rigorously evaluated using accepted best practices regarding plagiarism. (Submissions are routinely processed using our Scholastica publication workflow system, which affords us an initial evaluation of a paper's ostensible originality.) Articles which fail at this stage are to be immediately rejected.
• Articles should also be expected to situate themselves within or against the relevant existing academic literature (or show that, and explain why, such does not yet exist), thereby demonstrating familiarity with existing scholarship in an attempt to establish the originality of the submitted paper.
• Preference will be given to creative works on timely topics, and to papers that are likely to promote additional research, or suggest important new avenues of inquiry.
• The scope of the work should be clearly defined in the introduction. The author's own work in the field should not be singled out for special emphasis, and all contributors to the subject are to be treated on equal footing when selecting material for in-depth discussion.
• Articles must be readable; figures, formulae, etc. should be carefully organized and clearly labeled. It is to be assumed that readers are familiar with some fundamentals, but that they have no extended knowledge of the specialized topic itself.
• Reviewers should give estimates of the scientific or other disciplinary value of the work, together with some basis for their opinion. They should indicate whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant. Personal comments should be avoided at all costs.
• For manuscripts which do not meet the criteria adumbrated here, constructive suggestions (including other journals for which the article may be more appropriate) are welcome.

Please Note Well: The final review submitted to Limina should be twofold: (1) the reviewer form(s) that our Scholastica platform requires should be filled out completely; (2) accompanying (1), as an attachment to the form filled out, should be a detailed outline (or thorough discussion) of the comments that reviewers deem pertinent. For those manuscripts recommended for "revise and resubmit" we will require this detailed outline of comments and relevant discussion of the points in the manuscript needing further authorial attention; will we then require authors to supply reviewers with a point-by-point reply to comments - at the very minimum, alerting their reviewers where in the manuscript which comments were addressed and, for those comments or suggestions not addressed in the revision, a detailed explanation as to why they are omitted or otherwise do not appear.