Menu
Thank you for your time and interest in our Journal. The following are some guidelines to follow when either submitting or reviewing an article for the Journal. Authors, submissions guidelines are available at the journal website.
Novelty: Preferably, articles published in Anthropology of Consciousness show some kind of novel research finding or theoretical perspective; does this manuscript do so?
Significance: What is the general significance of the main topic or argument of this manuscript? What important questions does this manuscript address and answer? Are the findings of this manuscript related to broader issues and concerns in the anthropology of consciousness?
Engagement: Does the author adequately cite and engage with scholarship in anthropology and beyond that is germane to its thesis?
Supporting Evidence: Does the data and/or analysis presented in the article satisfactorily support its assertions? If so, how?
Clarity: Reviewers, please comment specifically on the readability, clarity, and organization of the manuscript. To what extent are the main ideas of the manuscript understandable to a lay audience and devoid of unnecessary jargon?
Additional Guidance for Reviewers
For additional guidance on the Peer Review process, please visit the Wiley Journal Reviewers page here.
Journal for the Anthropology of Consciousness
Overall Evaluation Criteria
| Contribution to theory/practitioner development |
| Appropriateness of the topic |
| Quality of the research methods |
| Quality of the analysis |
| Quality of the implications (e.g. practical ramifications, cultural considerations) |
| Quality of the writing (e.g. style, clarity, organization) |
| Overall significance |
Article Criteria
Clearly defined research question, problem statement, or hypothesis |
When appropriate, a comprehensive and subject-matter appropriate literature review or citation(s) of supporting literature |
When appropriate, a defined quantitative or qualitative research methodology design with a supporting literature review or citation(s) of the selected methodology. |
A detailed conclusion with recommendations for further research or implications |
Are the author’s arguments supported by evidence (e.g. primary historical material, ethnographic data, case studies, narratives, statistics, and/or recent scientific findings)? |
Reflexivity: Does the author actively and transparently reflect upon their positionality within the context of their research environment? |
Are the author’s arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work contribute to an understanding of the subject? |
Reviewer’s Recommendation
Decision |
Accept with no revisions |
Minor revisions |
Revise and submit with major revisions |
Reject for this journal – recommend submission to: ________________ |
Reject |
Also Include:
Confidential Comments to the Associate Editor (when necessary)
Comments to the Author
This supports programming, student participation, awards, and other activities
Select your membership category and AAC as your primary section.