Special Issue Workflow and Policies – The Criterion: An International Journal in English

How the Special Issue Process Works

This page sets out the complete editorial and peer review process governing manuscripts submitted to special issues of The Criterion through the Conference Collaboration Programme. It is intended for conference organisers, Guest Editors, and invited authors, all of whom are expected to be familiar with its provisions before the collaboration commences.

The governing principle of the process is straightforward: a manuscript submitted to a special issue is treated in every material respect as a manuscript submitted to a regular issue of the journal. The special issue context does not modify the review standard, create any presumption in favour of acceptance, or exempt any submission from any stage of the standard editorial process. Conference participation confers no privileged submission status. The threshold for acceptance is identical whether a paper originates in a conference collaboration or arrives through the journal’s open submission channel.

What the Conference Collaboration Programme provides is a structured pathway — a defined sequence of invitation, submission, review, and publication — through which conference research can be developed into peer-reviewed scholarship of the standard required for permanent inclusion in the journal’s record. The programme does not provide a publication guarantee at any point in that sequence.

Stage One: Invitation to Submit

Following an approved conference, the editorial office — or the Guest Editor acting under instruction from the editorial office using a journal-approved invitation template — issues formal invitations to selected conference presenters, inviting them to submit an extended paper for consideration in the special issue. The selection of presenters to be invited is made in consultation with the Guest Editor, drawing on the Guest Editor’s knowledge of the conference programme and the thematic coherence of the proposed special issue.

An invitation to submit is not an offer of publication. Every invitation letter issued through the programme states explicitly that submitted papers are subject to full independent peer review and that acceptance is not guaranteed. Invited authors who are in any doubt about the status of their invitation should refer to the invitation letter itself or contact the editorial office directly. Neither the Guest Editor nor the conference organising committee has authority to represent the likely outcome of the review process.

Authors who receive an invitation are not obliged to submit. Those who do submit are expected to have read the Extended Paper Requirements and the Manuscript Submission Standards before preparing their manuscript. The editorial office does not provide pre-submission developmental feedback on manuscript content. Authors seeking feedback before submitting should consult a colleague with relevant expertise.

Stage Two: The Extended Paper Standard

A manuscript submitted through the Conference Collaboration Programme must be a substantially developed extension of the conference paper or presentation. A lightly revised or near-identical version of the conference paper does not meet the submission threshold and will be declined at the initial screening stage without proceeding to peer review.

The distinction between a conference paper and a journal article is not primarily one of length. A conference paper is a work in progress — a research question presented for scholarly dialogue, an argument sketched at the level of outline, findings offered as preliminary and open to challenge. A journal article is a completed scholarly contribution: a fully developed, rigorously evidenced argument addressed to an international readership and added to the permanent scholarly record. The extended paper submitted through this programme must be of the latter kind.

In practice, the development required involves expanding and sustaining the central argument to a standard of clarity and completeness appropriate for peer review; substantially developing the engagement with relevant scholarship, including recent contributions to the field; identifying and articulating an original scholarly contribution explicitly within the manuscript; complying fully with the journal’s length and formatting requirements; and producing a manuscript that is materially distinct from the conference paper in argument, scope, and scholarly depth — not merely in word count.

Full guidance on the extended paper standard, including a structured self-assessment checklist, is provided in the Extended Paper Requirements document, available for download from this site. Authors are strongly encouraged to complete the self-assessment checklist before submitting. A manuscript for which any item in the checklist’s required section cannot be answered affirmatively is unlikely to pass the initial screening stage.

Prior Publication and Eligibility

Authors are frequently uncertain about whether the existence of a conference paper in written or published form affects their eligibility to submit an extended paper to the journal. The general position is as follows. A paper presented orally and not published in any written form, or distributed informally to conference delegates, is eligible. A paper uploaded to an institutional repository or personal website is eligible, provided the submitted manuscript constitutes a substantially new work. A paper published in conference proceedings — whether print or online, with or without a DOI — may be eligible, but authors must disclose this at the point of submission and the extended paper must be sufficiently distinct to constitute an independent scholarly contribution. A paper previously published in a peer-reviewed journal or edited volume is not eligible. A manuscript under simultaneous consideration at another journal is not eligible, and simultaneous submission is a breach of publication ethics that will result in immediate rejection.

Authors who are uncertain about their eligibility should contact the editorial office before submitting. Undisclosed prior publications discovered after submission or after acceptance will be treated as a breach of publication ethics and handled in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics and Peer Review Framework.

Stage Three: Submission Requirements

Manuscripts must be submitted through the journal’s standard submission portal. There is no separate or expedited pathway for special issue submissions. Authors must indicate at the point of submission that their manuscript is intended for the relevant special issue. This designation routes the manuscript appropriately but does not alter any aspect of how it is subsequently handled.

The following formatting requirements apply to all submissions. Manuscripts must be prepared in Times New Roman throughout, with the title in 14 point bold and body text in 12 point, justified, with single-line spacing. The minimum length is 3,000 words, excluding the abstract and Works Cited list; in practice, published articles in The Criterion typically range from 5,000 to 8,000 words, and authors should write to the length their argument requires rather than to a minimum threshold. An abstract of between 100 and 150 words is required, along with four to six keywords. All citations must follow MLA 9th Edition, with endnotes placed before the Works Cited list. Non-English quotations must be followed immediately by an English translation in parentheses. The manuscript must be submitted as a single .doc or .docx file with all author-identifying information, tracked changes, and comments removed.

The submission deadline for each special issue is established at the time the collaboration is confirmed and communicated to the Guest Editor and invited authors. Manuscripts received after the deadline may be declined without review. Extensions may be granted in exceptional circumstances on written request to the editorial office.

Stage Four: Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening before assignment to peer review. The purpose of this stage is not to assess scholarly merit; it is to determine whether a submission is complete, appropriately formatted, ethically compliant, and sufficiently developed to warrant the commitment of reviewer time. Screening is conducted entirely by the editorial office. The Guest Editor is not involved in the screening process.

The screening assessment covers the following: whether the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal and the special issue theme; whether it conforms to the formatting and length requirements of the Manuscript Submission Standards; whether it is written in English of a standard adequate for scholarly review; whether it has been submitted elsewhere or published previously; whether author-identifying information has been removed; whether the manuscript meets the extended paper standard; and whether any apparent ethical concerns are visible at this stage. All submissions also undergo plagiarism screening as a standard component of the process.

Following screening, a manuscript will either proceed to peer review, be returned to the author for minor formatting or technical correction before review, or be declined at screening. A screening decline is not a decision on scholarly merit; it records that the submission does not meet the minimum threshold for external review in its current form. Authors whose manuscripts are declined at screening may, in principle, revise and resubmit within the special issue deadline, but are advised to address all identified issues comprehensively before doing so.

Stage Five: Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening stage are assigned to double-blind peer review. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and author identities are not disclosed to reviewers. This model applies without exception to all submissions, including those where the author’s identity may be known to the Guest Editor through the conference. Authors must ensure that their submitted manuscript file contains no information that could identify them to a reviewer; manuscripts that are not properly anonymised will be returned for correction before review proceeds.

Each manuscript submitted to a special issue of The Criterion is assigned to three independent peer reviewers, consistent with the journal’s standard review policy. Reviewers are selected by the editorial office on the basis of subject expertise, availability, and the absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewers must not have a current or recent co-authorship or supervisory relationship with the submitting author, must not be members of the conference organising committee, and must not have been associated with the conference in a capacity that could create bias. The Guest Editor may recommend reviewers for specific submissions, but all recommendations are subject to the editorial office’s assessment and the office is not obliged to act on any recommendation. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to Guest Editors at any stage.

Reviewers assess manuscripts against the same criteria applied to regular journal submissions: originality and scholarly contribution, argument and analysis, engagement with scholarship, methodology where applicable, structure and organisation, writing quality, citation and referencing, and scope alignment. Reviewers are asked to submit their assessments within twenty-one days of accepting a review assignment; an extension of up to fourteen days may be granted where required.

The Guest Editor’s role during peer review is limited to responding to specific queries from the editorial office regarding thematic relevance or conference context, recommending reviewers when asked, and flagging ethical concerns to the editorial office. Guest Editors do not have access to reviewer reports, review assignments, or the review status of individual submissions.

Stage Six: Editorial Decision

All editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief of The Criterion. No other party — including the Guest Editor, the conference organiser, or the editorial board — holds final decision authority on acceptance or rejection. This applies to every submission regardless of the reviewer recommendations received.

Following the completion of peer review, each manuscript receives one of four decisions. An Accept decision indicates that the manuscript meets publication standards in its current form; minor copy-editing changes may be requested prior to typesetting, and authors are asked to return corrected proofs within seven days. A Minor Revision decision indicates that the manuscript is of publishable quality but requires limited revision — clarification of argument, correction of referencing, or minor structural adjustment — that does not require re-review; authors have twenty-one days to submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a detailed response letter addressing every point raised. A Major Revision decision indicates that the manuscript shows scholarly potential but requires substantial development before it can be considered for publication; authors have forty-five days to revise, and the revised manuscript returns to peer review. A Major Revision decision does not guarantee acceptance after revision. A Reject decision indicates that the manuscript does not meet the scholarly standards required for publication; rejection decisions are final, and authors may seek publication elsewhere.

Editorial decisions are communicated to authors by the editorial office through the journal’s official communication channels. Decision letters include the full anonymised reviewer reports and, where applicable, specific editorial guidance on required revisions. Guest Editors are not involved in communicating decisions to authors and are not copied into decision letters. The Guest Editor will receive a summary of decision outcomes for the special issue as a whole once all first-round decisions have been issued.

The number of papers required to constitute a publishable special issue does not influence editorial decisions. If the number of manuscripts meeting publication standards is insufficient to constitute a full issue, the editorial office will consult with the Guest Editor and the conference organiser on the available options. These may include publishing the accepted manuscripts as a themed cluster within a regular issue, extending the invitation to additional conference presenters, or postponing the issue pending further submissions. Under no circumstances will the acceptance threshold be lowered to achieve a target publication volume.

Stage Seven: Revision and Resubmission

Authors who receive a Minor Revision or Major Revision decision are required to submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a detailed response letter. The response letter must address every point raised by the reviewers and the editorial office, specifying the changes made and, where the author has chosen not to adopt a recommendation, providing a scholarly justification for that decision. Revised manuscripts submitted without a response letter, or with a response letter that does not address reviewer comments systematically, will be returned before the revision is processed.

Manuscripts that received a Major Revision decision return to peer review upon resubmission. Where possible, the same reviewers who assessed the original submission are invited to review the revised version. The revised manuscript is assessed against the same criteria as the original. A Major Revision decision on resubmission, or a Reject decision, remains possible if the revision does not adequately address the concerns identified. Authors should treat a Major Revision invitation as an opportunity to strengthen their work substantially, not as a conditional acceptance.

Authors who require an extension to a revision deadline must request this in writing from the editorial office before the deadline passes. Extensions are granted at the editorial office’s discretion. Manuscripts not resubmitted by the deadline, without an approved extension, will be treated as withdrawn from the special issue.

Stage Eight: Acceptance, Production, and Publication

A manuscript is considered finally accepted only when the Editor-in-Chief has issued a formal written acceptance confirmation to the author. This confirmation is distinct from a Minor Revision decision or any informal communication during the review process; it constitutes the editorial office’s definitive commitment to publish the manuscript in the designated special issue. Authors should not make public announcements of acceptance until this confirmation has been received.

Accepted manuscripts undergo copy-editing by the editorial office, addressing typographical errors, citation formatting, consistency of style, and compliance with journal presentation standards. Copy-editing does not extend to substantive revision of the manuscript’s argument, structure, or scholarly content. Authors receive a proofread version of their manuscript for review prior to publication and are asked to return corrections within seven days. At the proof stage, only correction of errors is acceptable; substantive changes to content will not be accommodated except in exceptional circumstances agreed with the Editor-in-Chief.

Authors of accepted manuscripts retain copyright in their work. Upon acceptance, authors grant the journal a licence to publish, distribute, and archive the article under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence, consistent with the journal’s open-access publication model. Each published article is assigned a DOI and made available on an open-access basis.

An article processing charge (APC) applies to manuscripts accepted through the Conference Collaboration Programme. The APC for special issue authors is ₹1,000 (Indian authors) or $50 USD (foreign authors), charged as a flat rate per paper regardless of the number of authors. There is no submission fee; the APC is invoiced by the journal only after a formal acceptance decision has been issued by the Editor-in-Chief. Authors should not make payment until official payment instructions have been received directly from the editorial office. Conference organisers may not collect, represent, or bundle this charge as part of conference registration or any other arrangement.

The ordering and presentation of articles within the special issue is determined by the editorial office in consultation with the Guest Editor. The Guest Editor is invited to submit a scholarly editorial introduction to accompany the published issue, framing the intellectual context of the special issue and situating the accepted papers within the broader scholarly conversation. The editorial introduction — between 1,000 and 2,000 words, formatted in accordance with the Manuscript Submission Standards — is subject to editorial review and approval by the Editor-in-Chief before publication.

Ethical Issues Arising During Review

Where evidence of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or duplicate submission is identified at any stage — whether at screening, during peer review, or after acceptance — the review process will be suspended pending investigation. Confirmed plagiarism will result in rejection and may result in the author being barred from future submissions. Confirmed duplicate submission will result in immediate rejection. Serious cases may be referred to the author’s employing institution in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Where a dispute arises regarding authorship — including questions about undisclosed contributors or the inclusion of individuals who did not contribute substantively to the work — the editorial office will follow COPE guidelines for authorship disputes. The review process will be suspended until the dispute is resolved by the authors and a clarified authorship statement is provided.

Where reviewer misconduct is identified — including breach of confidentiality, failure to disclose a conflict of interest, or misappropriation of ideas from a reviewed manuscript — the reviewer will be removed from the assignment and from the journal’s reviewer pool, and the manuscript will be assigned to a replacement reviewer.

All parties involved in the special issue process — editorial office staff, Guest Editors, peer reviewers, and submitting authors — are expected to act in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics and Peer Review Framework, which is aligned with COPE guidelines and available for download from this site.

Appeals

An author who considers that a rejection decision was made on procedural grounds — for example, that a manifest conflict of interest on the part of a reviewer was not identified and managed, or that the review process deviated materially from this protocol — may submit a written appeal to the editorial office within twenty-one days of receiving the decision. Appeals must be made on procedural or factual grounds and supported by specific evidence. Disagreement with the scholarly judgement of reviewers or the Editor-in-Chief does not constitute grounds for appeal.

Appeals are reviewed by a senior member of the editorial board who was not involved in the original decision. The outcome is communicated in writing within thirty days of receipt and is final. A successful procedural appeal does not automatically reverse the rejection decision; it may result in the manuscript being submitted to an independent review process.

Process Summary

The following summary provides a consolidated reference for all parties involved in the special issue process, from submission through to publication.

Stage	Responsible Party	Key Actions	Typical Timeline
Invitation to Submit	Editorial Office / Guest Editor	Selected presenters invited using approved template; eligibility conditions stated.	Following conference
Manuscript Submission	Author	Submit via portal; indicate special issue; remove author identifiers; confirm no prior publication.	Ongoing to deadline
Initial Screening	Editorial Office	Check scope, format, originality, blind compliance, and extended paper standard. Run plagiarism screening.	3–5 working days per submission
Reviewer Assignment	Editorial Office	Select and invite three independent reviewers. Notify Guest Editor of review commencement.	3–7 working days post-screening
Peer Review	Independent Reviewers	Assess manuscript against published criteria. Submit written report and recommendation.	21 days (extendable to 35)
Editorial Decision	Editor-in-Chief	Review all reports. Issue Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Communicate to author.	Within 7 working days of final report
Minor Revision	Author / Editorial Office	Author revises and submits response letter. Editorial office assesses revision.	Revision due: 21 days
Major Revision	Author / Reviewers / Editor-in-Chief	Author revises and submits response letter. Returns to peer review. New decision issued.	Revision due: 45 days. Re-review: 21 days.
Final Acceptance	Editorial Office / Author	Formal acceptance issued. Copy-editing conducted. Author reviews and returns proof.	Proof turnaround: 7 days
Publication	Editorial Office	Issue compiled. DOIs assigned. Special issue published online on open-access basis.	Per agreed publication schedule