A Roadmap to Publication

Overview

Isegoria employs comprehensive evaluation practices to ensure quality and fairness, comprising editorial and external peer review. We ask reviewers to complete the task within a pre-agreed, reasonable timeframe, in full consideration of the needs of prospective authors. Our process is streamlined, with clear steps as listed below (Phases and Steps). We are committed to offering a collaborative, quality-assured journey from proposal to publication. Our editors are always available to discuss ideas and offer feedback for the preparation of the Proposal.

Please Note: whereas authors are welcome to submit manuscripts and publish their work in their preferred language, for reasons of quality control and transparency we expect that all communications (proposal, emails, letters, agreement, checks) will be conducted in English.

Phase I: Proposal Submission and Evaluation (max. 10 Weeks)

Isegoria accepts book proposals at any time, with or without prior communication. However, an earlier connection can positively affect peer review as it will prepare the ground for the process. We value collaborative work and we look forward to working with prospective authors towards a common goal. We can only accept proposals written in English, but the language of the publication is the authors’ choice.

We are happy to read/receive proposals in any format, yet we expect to see the following aspects discussed (and we kindly refer you to our Proposal Form, if you do not have a document already prepared):

Personal information: name, affiliation (if any), ORCID/Academia page, and/or staff page (if applicable), short bio.
Title and Subtitle.
Type: monograph, conference proceedings, edited volume, thesis.
Content information: size/word count (including footnotes and bibliography, excluding indexes, acknowledgements, contents, plates).
Illustrations: tables, photographs, maps, or any other (number, colour/B&W).
Copyrights: permission to publish all texts and materials.
Abstract/Description of the main idea, themes, and methodology.
Keywords: 5-10 terms indicative of content and main themes. Please consider how prospective readers with a broad or specific interest in your topic will search online for relevant publications - what will they type in the Search tab?
Chapter plan with a small overview for each one.
Third-party material: please list all parts the authors have previously published in any format (e.g., journal paper, thesis, essays in edited volumes, conference proceedings, webpages, institutional/public repositories) that you intend to include in the manuscript. What is the expected similarity ratio?
Turning your thesis into a monograph: if this is a proposed publication of a successful PhD thesis, please explain how you plan to transform it into a form appropriate for a wider audience/academic community.
Timeframe: when do you plan to submit the complete manuscript, with all texts, illustrations, permissions, and principal parts (indexes, plates, addenda and so on)?
Shortlist of competing publications: how does your proposed publication complement, add, differ, or revise comparable works?
Potential reviewers: please suggest 3-5 external reviewers. You can exclude reviewers for whom you have concerns. You should exclude those with whom you currently have or had in that past an organic relationship (e.g., supervisor, line manager, co-worker), or have already read and advised on parts of the manuscript.

Proposal Form

STEP 1: In-House Proposal Evaluation

Isegoria will evaluate only final, complete Proposals; draft proposals will not be accepted or evaluated.

(a) If the proposal does not meet the quality requirements of the publishing house, it is rejected and returned to the author with feedback.

(b) If the proposal meets the quality and originality requirements of Isegoria, and merits publication, authors will receive a Decision Letter within 4 weeks, with an Offer of Terms (subject to contract). It is expected that the author does not submit the proposal elsewhere while evaluation is underway.

STEP 2: External Proposal Evaluation (Double-Blind Peer-Review)

The proposal is sent to two external reviewers for a round of blind peer-review. Anonymity is preserved at all times. The reviewers are experts in the respective topic and their assessments weigh in the final decision to publish the manuscript. The reviewers provide feedback to the publishers and authors in writing with a recommendation: (a) Publish; (b) Revise and Publish; and (c) Reject. In case of rejection, the decision is final.

STEP 3: Final Decision

The publishers evaluate the feedback and inform the author on the outcome of the peer-review process. Authors are invited to respond to the suggestions in writing, addressing all comments and suggestions, and listing pending revisions.

A final, binding agreement is negotiated and signed between author and publishers, if issues have been addressed satisfactorily. In case of collective volumes (conference proceedings and edited volumes), individual contracts are also offered to the contributors.

STEP 1: Academic Integrity Checks

Upon completion of preliminary checks (authorship, the author’s identity, and acquisition of licences and permissions to use material protected by copyright), Isegoria will perform plagiarism and similarity checks via iThenticate®. For more information on the process please follow the link to our Editorial Policies.

EDITORIAL POLICIES

STEP 2: Peer Review of Manuscript

Upon successful completion of preliminary checks, the manuscript will be sent to two external reviewers, experts in the respective field(s). Their decision, recommendation, suggestions, and corrections are subject to discussion, within reason, and will be sent to the author(s) via email. The author must confirm receipt and in due time issue a Letter to the Publishers, which should address all points made by the reviewers and the publishers.

In case of conflict between author and reviewer, the publishers will step in to discuss issues in writing with both parties and find solutions. Anonymity shall be maintained for the duration of the consultation period. If the conflict remains unresolved, the issue is referred by the publishers to a third party. Their decision will be final and binding for all parties and will be based on the evaluation of evidence and arguments provided by all parties.

STEP 3: Revision and Resubmission

Upon completion of discussions on issues raised by the peer-review process, the authors make all agreed revisions and resubmit the final manuscript. Authors are kindly asked to issue a Revision Report to the publishers via email to indicate revised parts and changes made.

STEP 4: In-House Proofreading and Layout

Isegoria provides proofreading services to assure consistency and decides with the author on stylistic aspects (e.g., layout, illustrations, and cover). For edited volumes, we discuss with the corresponding author/editor(s).

STEP 5: Final Proofs and Authors’ Consent

This is the last formal step before realising the publication of the manuscript. The author returns the final proofs to Isegoria, indicating only minor adjustments (typos, punctuation, incorrect layout, omissions in references) that do not affect the overall layout of the publication unless there is a compelling reason. The author(s) provide their written consent (via mail and email) to approve the commencement of the production of the book. For collective volumes and conference proceedings, all editors and authors/contributors should provide, in writing (mail or email), their consent via the corresponding author, who then issues the Letter of Consent to the publisher on behalf of all contributing parties.

We reserve the right to withhold or cancel publication in cases where:

Checks have failed.
Authors remain unwilling to consider and satisfactorily address the reviewers' or the publishers' comments.
Severe delays render the publication obsolete (e.g., because of another publication elsewhere which covers the topic comprehensively).
Permissions to use third-party material have failed.
Co-authors or contributors raise substantial objections over integrity, authorship, authenticity, or any other academic or legal aspect.