Reviewer guidelines

Museum and Society is an interdisciplinary journal with a wide-ranging interest in issues associated with museums and other places of public culture concerned with collecting, exhibiting and display. Museum and Society publishes articles covering social science, humanities, and practitioner research.

Referees’ identities are confidential. Referee reports will be shared with authors, unless there are particular reasons not to do so (such as inappropriate comments or breaches of confidentiality). If a reviewer does not want this done, they should inform the editor before submitting their report. In your review report, you will be asked to comment on the following aspects of the article:

• Originality – does this article cover new ground or take a new approach to a topic?
• Grasp of relevant literature – does the author refer to or acknowledge important prior work (or exhibitions) on the topic?
• Level of scholarship – does the article present a central argument in a critical and analytical way, one that recognizes potential contradictions or difficulties in the argument, and which contextualizes the topic appropriately?
• Contribution to the field of museum studies (or related topics) and to current debates about museums – does the article add something to our understanding of its topic? Are museums and/or Museum Studies central or tangential to its core?
• Matters of clarity, style, and presentation – is the English clear, terse, and straightforward? Does the author avoid unnecessary repetition and stultifying jargon? Is the argument structured in the best possible way or would another system of organisation work better? Are there surface errors?

In addition, please consider and comment on the following:

• Focus and scope – does the article fit within our focus and scope?
• Opening: Does the title fit the content? Does the introduction clearly state the problem to be solved? Does it draw the reader’s interest?
• Methods: Does the author describe and use an appropriate method for the research? Does the author provide evidence to support claims?
• Conclusions: Is the central question answered? Are the conclusions warranted by the information provided in the article?
• Length: Is the article between 5,000 and 8,000 words? Are there sections that should be shorter or further developed?

Please provide your report within four weeks; delayed responses can have significant negative effects on authors’ careers. Note: When referees infer that they might have had past relationships or connections with authors, they should notify the managing editor, who will make the ultimate decision about whether the referee should continue to be involved.