Statement on peer review

My policy on reviewing papers

I am always happy to review papers in the field of Philippine studies, Australian studies, linguistic anthropology and writing system research.

I feel strongly about enriching these fields and making a fair contribution, and there are only a few circumstances in which I will decline to review a paper: if it is legitimately beyond my expertise, if I have already reviewed an unusually high number within the year, or if I have already reviewed several papers by the same author.

I stand by my comments so I’m happy to be identified by name to the author at the editors’ discretion.

My policy on being reviewed

I will never waste anyone’s time by submitting a paper that I believe to be sub-standard. So if it turns out that my paper that you’re editing or reviewing is objectively terrible, that’s because I’m a terrible scholar, not a terrible person. Please assume good faith and take licence to be as critical as possible.

For editors: I am happy to make necessary editorial changes after peer revisions are complete, but on ethical grounds I will not change core content or analysis unless it goes back out for review. (Of course if as an editor you still disagree with me after peer revisions, please feel free not to publish my paper or to go ahead and publish your disagreement.)

My position on peer-review models

Peer review is by no means perfect, but I believe the best model available is the group-consolidated method promoted by eLife that addresses two of the biggest drawbacks of classical models: pace of review and quality control. You can read about the eLife review process here.