Peer Review Policy
Review Guidelines
UM Policy Briefs uses double-blind peer review. Both reviewer and author identities are concealed throughout the review cycle. Reviewers are asked to evaluate briefs on the following criteria, adapted from Young & Quinn (n.d.) and Tsai (2006):
o Focus: Is the brief strategically focused on convincing a specific, identified audience? Is the argument built on what the audience knows and addresses what they do not?
o Evidence base: Are all claims supported by credible, relevant evidence? Is the problem clearly demonstrated to exist and its consequences clearly described?
o Critique of current policy: Does the brief fairly and credibly identify the failings of the current approach? Are counter-positions acknowledged?
o Quality of recommendations: Are the recommended steps practical, specific, and feasible for the named audience? If radical change is recommended, is implementation addressed?
o Conciseness and accessibility: Is the brief within the word limit? Is the language free of jargon and easy to follow for a non-specialist reader?
o Presentation: Is the layout professional and suitable as a public document? Is the executive summary front-loaded and self-sufficient?
Review Decisions
Reviewers recommend one of: Accept, Accept with minor revisions, Major revisions required, or Reject. The editor-in-chief makes the final decision. Target turnaround from submission to first decision is 8 weeks; expedited track briefs aim for 3 weeks.
UM Policy Briefs uses double-blind peer review. Both reviewer and author identities are concealed throughout the review cycle. Reviewers are asked to evaluate briefs on the following criteria, adapted from Young & Quinn (n.d.) and Tsai (2006):
o Focus: Is the brief strategically focused on convincing a specific, identified audience? Is the argument built on what the audience knows and addresses what they do not?
o Evidence base: Are all claims supported by credible, relevant evidence? Is the problem clearly demonstrated to exist and its consequences clearly described?
o Critique of current policy: Does the brief fairly and credibly identify the failings of the current approach? Are counter-positions acknowledged?
o Quality of recommendations: Are the recommended steps practical, specific, and feasible for the named audience? If radical change is recommended, is implementation addressed?
o Conciseness and accessibility: Is the brief within the word limit? Is the language free of jargon and easy to follow for a non-specialist reader?
o Presentation: Is the layout professional and suitable as a public document? Is the executive summary front-loaded and self-sufficient?
Review Decisions
Reviewers recommend one of: Accept, Accept with minor revisions, Major revisions required, or Reject. The editor-in-chief makes the final decision. Target turnaround from submission to first decision is 8 weeks; expedited track briefs aim for 3 weeks.