Skip to main content

English and Creative Writing

Editorial board and process

Our editorial process

Our review process is designed to help the journal publish high quality, original Postgraduate research. Our Editorial Board and peer reviewers are integral to maintaining our high standards, which is why all submissions are processed as outlined below.

Once the CFP deadline has passed, each submission is read by each member of the editorial team and discussed collaboratively, before being put to a vote. Submissions rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious flaws in their arguments or content, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal or the edition’s theme. Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to two peer reviewers- an academic and a PhD student- with relevant expertise. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will usually be informed within two weeks of the editorial meeting. 

Exclamat!on employs ‘double blind’ reviewing, in which the reviewers remain anonymous to the author(s) throughout and following the refereeing process, whilst the identity of the author(s) is likewise unknown to the reviewers.

Reviewers from our international database are matched to submissions based on relevant expertise and research interests. Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the submission is:

  • Is original and contributes to gaps in the critical field
  • Correctly references previous relevant work and developments in the research field
  • Clearly adds to the knowledge and development of the field

Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but referees are encouraged to suggest corrections of language and style to the submission. In the final round, the handling Editor will check matters of linguistic and stylistic correctness and may suggest or apply corrections at this point. In rare cases, the manuscript may be returned to the author(s) for a full linguistic and stylistic revision.

The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the peer reviewers. For Exclamat!on, the typical time for the first round of the review process is approximately 6 weeks, with a maximum of three months. Should the referees’ reports contradict one another, or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion may be sought. In the rare cases when it is extremely difficult to find a second referee to review the manuscript, whilst the one referee’s extant report has thoroughly convinced the handling Editor, a decision to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision may be made, at the handling Editor’s discretion, based on only one referee report. The handling Editor’s decision will be sent to the author with the reviewers’ recommendations.

Once peer reviews have been submitted, all peer reviews are read by the Editorial Board. Each handling editor will then make the case for the inclusion of their submission, which will be voted on by the rest of the board.

A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with the recommendations made by the reviewers, including (if applicable) the latter’s verbatim comments.

Becoming a peer reviewer for Exclamat!on

If you are not currently a peer reviewer for Exclamat!on, but would like to be considered, please contact

Meet the editorial team

<< Back to Exclamation home page