Journal of Hate Studies
Peer Review Process
The Peer Review Process
JHS is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal that relies on the generosity and integrity of peer reviewers to advance the field of hate studies. We are grateful for those who lend their knowledge and time to serve this way and encourage you to share your expertise by becoming a manuscript reviewer; simply email the editor with your CV and statement of interest, including areas where you are qualified to serve as a reviewer.
To ensure a meaningful experience for both reviewers and authors, we encourage reviewers to assess manuscripts on the following criteria:
- Relevance, impact, and depth of contribution to the field of hate studies
- Engagement with secondary literature valued in hate studies or secondary literature that expands the relevance of hate studies by connecting it to new fields of study
- Inclusion of new and underrepresented perspectives in hate studies in both primary and secondary sources as appropriate
- Sound methods that are clearly explained for readers trained in a range of disciplines
- Clarity and soundness of argument and evidence
- Ethical integrity in the conduct and presentation of research
Reviewers are encouraged to offer praise of each manuscript’s strengths as part of JHS’s larger effort to support outstanding work as well as emerging scholarship. Comments on lower-order concerns, such as grammar and style, are welcome but not necessary. We request that reviewers provide written feedback, in addition to their suggestion of publication or rejection, so that we can support writers in developing their ideas.
Reviews are requested within 40 days of receipt of the manuscript to ensure timely publication, which is especially important for manuscripts addressing current events, or to allow authors to seek publication elsewhere. If reviewers are unable to meet this timeline, they should contact the editor promptly.
JHS values unique perspectives and contributions and therefore prohibits the use of generative AI for authors, editors, and reviewers. Manuscript reviewers are prohibited from using AI tools to analyze manuscripts or write manuscript reviews. Authors place trust in editors and reviewers, vulnerably sharing hard and often very personal work, and we return that trust by offering only thoughtful, engaged, authentic peer-reviewed manuscript reviews written by human readers.
Failure to disclose the use of generative AI may result in retractions of publications, among other corrective actions, even if the content published does not contain errors or plagiarism caused by AI use.
Reviewers who find themselves struggling to research and write without the use of generative AI are encouraged to contact the managing editor or editorial board chair for support. JHS’s larger mission includes increasing scholarly interest and competency in hate studies, and supporting writers is part of that work.
Generative v. Assistive AI for Peer Reviewers
Assistive AI tools are permitted in manuscripts and reviews of manuscripts, and their use does not have to be disclosed. These are tools that merely address lower-level technical tasks, such as identifying spelling errors and typos, proposing diction choices and syntax changes to improve readability, and formatting bibliographies of works the author has read. They do not propose ideas, locate sources, summarize key points in readings, or generate text based on prompts. When you create content and use a digital tool to refine it, you are using assistive AI. Examples include spell check and citation management systems. However, authors alone are responsible for the content of their publications and should ensure that even permissible assistive AI does not introduce errors into their work.
Generative AI tools produce content, including outlines and summaries of existing texts, manuscripts, images, charts and graphs, and translations. Manuscripts with their origins in generative AI content—such as articles written based on an AI-generated outline or articles that are built from heavily-revised AI-generated content—must be disclosed if you submit them to JHS, and it is unlikely that they will be published. Example tools include ChatGPT, Claude, and Copilot.