All SIPRI publications are subject to peer review, internally and externally. Only by consent of the Director of Studies (DOS) is work not externally reviewed. Good writing is an iterative process: it only gets better with revision. Successive rounds of feedback and revision should be built into all writing schedules.
Peer review is a multifaceted quality control process that is a cornerstone of all SIPRI publications. It is a dynamic process that involves varying levels of oversight by the line manager and/or DOS. Line managers and/or DOS should be playing an active part at different stages, as appropriate, in providing feedback as well as evaluating the implementation of feedback.
The various kinds of peer review constellations generally fall into two camps: the informal review process (run by the author) and the formal review process (run by the Editorial Department). Following the informal review, the work is circulated in-house (the house review) and then externally (the external review).
To know and do before in advance
Before the work is shared with the Editorial Department, authors (in the first instance) and line managers (in the second) should make sure that a number of boxes have been ticked. Authors should have used the template, followed the style guide, formatted footnotes according to SIPRI style and flagged visuals. The work should be within length (it is not the editor’s or referee’s task to suggest where cuts should be made), appropriate for the publication format and the audience, and meet the funder requirements. The work should be clearly conceptualized and well structured, written and documented. In sum, it should be ready for substantive expert comment and a standard copy edit.
Authors should ensure that all sections are complete and in order; all headings are in place, correct and of the right level; all figures are numbered consecutively with corresponding in-text call outs; all necessary permissions have been cleared or are in the process of being cleared; there are no garbled sections, incomplete sentences, obvious typos or unintended gaps (e.g. where the author was going to fill in a date or figure); references are complete; and left over comments are removed. Authors should not already be anticipating substantial changes that would affect the validity of the review process.
Work deemed ready to be circulated by the Editorial Department in any manner should always have been approved by the line manager. Such approval means work has been evaluated by the author and the line manager as being as near ‘publication ready’ as possible. The line manager should be cc’d when the work is sent to the Editorial Department.
Work that does not meet these standards (a) will not be circulated for review and (b) cannot be expected to follow a standard production schedule. Alternative schedules and review processes should be established for work needing more developmental assistance. The external referee and the editors cannot be tasked with doing the work the author should have done with regard to content, structure and writing.
The informal review
The informal review can include a range of feedback-and-revise loops, including author-writing team review, project/programme/team review, line manager review, DOS review, peer-to-peer review, network review and other such similar. The nature and extent of this process should be agreed by the author and line manager/DOS. The more transparent this process, the better. Essentially, the text should be reviewed and revised as many times as necessary until it is jointly agreed that the text is ready for formal review.
While the Editorial Department is not explicitly involved in the various informal review processes, it is recommended that authors cc Joey when the work is being ‘officially’ shared with the team, line manager or DOS in advance of it being submitted for formal review. This kind of situational awareness allows the Editorial Department to track progress and follow up as necessary should the process go rogue in some way.
In short, all work needs to be closely vetted via an internal process with closest colleagues and supervisors before it is to be circulated by the Editorial Department to SIPRI-at-large and externally. This process is managed by the authors and precedes any of the production schedule milestones set by the Editorial Department.
The two tracks of formal review
The formal review comprises two parts: the house review and the external referee; the Editorial Department facilitates both. Unless otherwise agreed, the house review takes place first, before a revised version is sent to the external referee. When time is short, the two reviews can take place simultaneously, but this is subject to proper planning. DOS approval is a prerequisite for a parallel review; this responsibility may be (transparently) delegated to a line manager.
To reiterate, work should be agreed within the writing team and line manager before it is shared more widely. Consult specific relevant colleagues early and as often as necessary.
The house review
The house review is a means to providing SMT/Outreach situational awareness, capitalizing on in-house expertise and obtaining cross-cluster validation and is an act of general collegial courtesy.
The Editorial Department circulates draft work to all members of staff and interns, inviting them to comment either in a particular capacity or as an interested reader. Since collegial participation in this process is optional, authors are encouraged to work bilaterally with specific individuals to firmly secure their feedback.
To facilitate this process, authors investigate and identify relevant (i.e. topic-adjacent) SIPRI colleagues to be targeted for providing feedback. If the authors are unsure of whom to target, they should discuss options with their supervisor. Authors supply the names of relevant colleagues when the house review draft is submitted to editorial. The work will not be shared without suggestions for house reviewers.
House reviewers are given 5 to 10 days to provide comments. Special situations aside, reviewers are requested to send their feedback to Editorial Department, usually Joey. While the work is under review, an editor often does a preliminary edit and/or gives comments at this stage on overall content, structure and any stylistic problems that they foresee. Thus, once a draft is submitted, the master copy is considered to be with editorial until further notice.
Feedback—along with a clearly identified new master draft—is bundled and forwarded to the author(s), the line manager, the relevant DOS and in some cases SIPRI Editorial Board (SEB, consisting of Dan, Stephanie, Joey and the relevant DOS).
The external review
The Editorial Department facilitates one paid external referee (SEK 2000 to 5000). If no single referee has expertise in all the main topics covered in the text, more than one referee may be used.
The SIPRI external referee process is generally open (neither blind, nor double blind): the referees often know or can figure out who the author is, and the author has usually had a hand in finding a referee.
Finding appropriate referees
In practice, the author is often the only person in SIPRI familiar enough with the field to be able to suggest appropriate referees, but the author does not have the final say on referee choice. The author and line manager should brainstorm a list of names and agree a shortlist of the top candidates. They should send the contact information of three people in rank order to the Editorial Department two weeks before the paper is scheduled to be ready for refereeing.
The referee should be picked on the basis of (a) their expertise in relevant topics and (b) the likelihood that they will give objective, honest, full and useful comments. For publications related to externally funded projects, do not use a referee associated with the funder.
Referee oversight and next steps
The referees’ feedback is shared with the author(s), the line manager and the DOS. Authors should work with line mangers and other relevant colleagues to evaluate feedback. Line managers need to approve the revision before it is returned to editorial to enter the standard production schedule.
In the event that a worrisome review has been returned, the review is forwarded to the SEB for consideration. In some instances, a publication may need to be cancelled or specific action plans may need to be drafted to manage the production through publication.
It is after this review process is successfully completed that a paper can enter into editorial production.