Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

All articles submitted to Open Quaternary are initially assessed by an Editor, who decides whether or not the article is suitable for peer review. Submissions considered suitable are assigned to one or more independent experts, who assess the article for clarity, sound methodology/data analysis and validity of conclusions.

Open Quaternary operates a double-blind peer review process, meaning that authors and reviewers remain anonymous for the review process. The review period is expected to take around four weeks, although this may vary. Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal. If the author has not returned revisions within six months, the submission will be be sent back out for review, to ensure that the content remains up to date

Based on the reviewer reports the editor will make a recommendation for rejection, minor or major revisions, or acceptance. Overall editorial responsibility rests with the journal’s Editors-in-Chief, who is supported by an expert, international Editorial Board.

Authors are permitted to suggest up to three potential peer reviewers during the submission process. The journal does not guarantee to use these suggestions. All reviewers must be independent from the submission and will be asked to declare all competing interests.

Data papers

Data papers are fully peer reviewed to ensure that they are accurate and that the data has been openly archived in accordance with best practices. The datasets themselves are not reviewed in terms of validity or importance.

Negative results for example can be useful to other researchers, and even data with inaccuracies (known or unknown) can help others to better contextualise research conclusions.

All data papers are peer reviewed according to the following criteria. Due to the nature of open respositories, the review of data papers will be single blind, with the reviewer possibly knowing the identity of the author:

1. The paper contents

  1. The methods section of the paper must provide sufficient detail that a reader can understand how the dataset was created, and would within reason be able to recreate it.
  2. The dataset must be correctly described.
  3. The reuse section must provide concrete and useful suggestions for reuse of the data.

2. . The deposited data

  1. The repository the data is deposited in must be suitable for this subject and have a sustainability model (see our list of recommended repositories).
  2. The data must be deposited under an open license that permits unrestricted access (e.g. CC0, CC-BY).
  3. The deposited data must include a version that is in an open, non-proprietary format.
  4. The deposited data must have been labelled in such a way that a 3rd party can make sense of it (e.g. sensible column headers, descriptions in a readme text file).
  5. The deposited data must be actionable – i.e. if a specific script or software is needed to interpret it, this should also be archived and accessible.

 

Section Policies

Research paper

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Methods

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Review

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Engagement paper

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Data paper

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Editorial

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed


Quick links