Jump to:
Research Misconduct
MSU Press condemns all forms of research misconduct, such as plagiarism, the misrepresentation or fabrication of evidence, or evidence obtained unethically or illegally. As a department of Michigan State University, we abide by the university’s policy on research misconduct. We also strive to follow the best practices in publication identified by the Committee on Publication Ethics. We expect our series and journal editors, volume editors, and peer reviewers to vet manuscripts for evidence of research misconduct prior to publication.
If made aware of a credible allegation of such misconduct in any of our books or journals, MSU Press will refer the matter to MSU’s research integrity officer. If subsequent investigation substantiates the alleged misconduct, MSU Press will promptly take the appropriate steps to correct or remove the problematic content from its stock.
For minor misrepresentations, we will issue an errata sheet. For books, the corrections will be made promptly in the e-books and in any subsequent printings. For journals, the errata notice will appear in the next print issue, and a corrected digital version will be available in the Project MUSE and JSTOR databases along with a statement about what has been corrected.
For major misconduct such as plagiarism or fabrication, we will pulp print editions of the publications containing the offending material and reissue corrected print and digital versions. Journal articles available via Project MUSE will include redaction notices explaining what has happened. Journal articles available via JSTOR will be darkened or removed, depending on the judgment of JSTOR’s content management team. The costs of retracting, correcting, reissuing, and labeling the publications in question will be charged to the individual found to have committed the misconduct. Volume or journal editors who failed to identify the problem may also be billed.
If you believe that plagiarized, fraudulent, or unethical research has been published in one of our books or journals, please detail the reasons for your belief in an email to the press director, Elizabeth Demers.
Peer Review Policies
As a university press, MSU Press requires everything published under the MSU Press imprint to be peer-reviewed and approved by an editorial board prior to publication. We thank all the scholars who have already contributed or who will in the future contribute their time and expertise to ensuring the high quality and integrity of academic scholarship.
Books
Anonymity
For books, our review process is single-anonymous. Reviewers know who the author is, but the author does not know who the reviewers are, unless the reviewers later reveal their identities or authorize the press to reveal their identities. On some occasions, at the discretion of the series editor or MSU Press acquisitions editor, we may use a double-anonymous review process, in which the reviewers do not know the author’s identity and the author does not know the reviewers’ identities.
Management of peer review
Who manages the peer review process and mediates between the reviewers and the author varies. For some series, the series editor(s) recruit reviewers, send them the manuscripts, receive the reviews, and share them with the authors. These series are:
- The Animal Turn
- Breakthroughs in Mimetic Theory
- Latinos in the United States
- Papers of the Algonquian Conference
- Rhetoric and Public Affairs
- Studies in Violence, Mimesis, and Culture
- Transformations in Higher Education
- US‒China Relations in the Age of Globalization
For other series, MSU Press’s acquisitions editors recruit reviewers, send them the manuscripts, receive the reviews, and share them with the authors, all with the guidance of series editors. These series are:
- African History and Culture
- African Humanities and the Arts
- American Indian Studies
- Discovering the Peoples of Michigan
- Ruth Simms Hamilton African Diaspora
For books not in series, this work is performed by MSU Press acquisitions editors.
Selection of reviewers
MSU Press’s series editors and acquisitions editors abide by the AUPresses’ Handbook of Best Practices for Peer Review. Reviewers are chosen for their expertise in relevant disciplines and a certain level of achievement in the field (typically marked by a significant record of publication). We strive to identify and work with a broad and diverse network of reviewers.
Number of peer reviews
The press typically arranges for two external reviews of each manuscript. In the case of series, one of these reviewers may be a member of the series editorial board. In some instances, as when a manuscript is highly interdisciplinary or when two reviewers offer conflicting recommendations, the press may enlist a third peer reviewer.
In some cases, at the discretion of series editors or MSU Press acquisitions editors, a manuscript that has been revised following an initial round of peer review will be sent for a second round of peer review. If the initial peer reviews conflicted, or if both reviews raised significant concerns while nevertheless recommending publication, the press is likely to require a second round of review.
Results of reviews
MSU Press normally offers a contract to an author whose project receives two positive reviews, but it may decline to do so at the discretion of series editors or acquisitions editors if they determine that the project is not feasible for the press.
A project receiving mixed reviews may be accepted contingent upon revisions, accepted contingent upon revisions requiring a second round of review, or rejected at the discretion of series editors or acquisitions editors.
A project receiving negative reviews will normally be rejected. Series editors or acquisitions editors may at their discretion continue to work with the authors to develop such projects, revised versions of which will need to receive positive peer reviews before a final contract is offered.
Editorial board approval
In some series, the series editorial board evaluates projects that have been through peer review and have been revised. These series are:
- The Animal Turn
- Breakthroughs in Mimetic Theory
- Latinos in the United States
- Papers of the Algonquian Conference
- Rhetoric and Public Affairs
- Studies in Violence, Mimesis, and Culture
- Transformations in Higher Education
In other series and for all books not in series, the press’s editorial board evaluates projects following peer review. Approval by a series board or the press’s board is required for a manuscript to be put into production.
Open review
MSU Press does not practice any form of open review. A reviewer does not know who the other readers of the manuscript are and does not see anyone else’s report on the project. For series in which MSU Press staff manage the review process, reviews are not circulated to anyone except press staff and series editors, nor are they published in any form. For series in which the series editors manage the review process, some or all of the members of the series editorial board may see the peer reviews.
Journals
Anonymity
MSU Press journals employ a double-anonymous peer review process for all academic articles. There is no identifying information on either the manuscript or in the review, so neither author nor reviewer knows who the other is. Some journals occasionally publish a list of external reviewers without identifying who reviewed which pieces.
Management of peer review and selection of reviewers
The journal editor(s) oversee the peer review process for all academic articles. Two reviewers are selected for each article from a pool comprised of editorial board members and other scholars in the field. Invitations that include the article title and abstract are sent to potential peer reviewers. Reviewers are given access to the piece once they have accepted the invitation to review it.
Format of reviews
Depending on the journal, reviewers are instructed either to give free-form feedback in essay format or to rate the article’s quality (e.g., on a 1–5 scale) based on certain criteria. Some MSU Press journals request a combination of both types of feedback. Journal editors are responsible for determining the review format.
Results of reviews
Reviewers can suggest that an article be accepted as-is, accepted with minor revisions, accepted with major revisions, or rejected. Based on reviewer recommendations, the journal editor will determine the final decision and notify the author.
If a piece is accepted as-is or only requires minor revisions, the journal editor verifies whether the requested changes have been made and submits the piece to the press for publication. If an article requires major revisions, it will be sent for a second round of review to verify that the suggested changes have been made.
In cases where reviewers do not reach a clear consensus, the article may be sent out to a third reviewer, with the final determination to be made by the journal editor in collaboration with associate editors or editorial board members, as necessary.
Items not requiring peer review
Other types of content, including book reviews, solicited forums or special sections, and interviews, are not required to undergo the double-anonymous peer review process. In those cases, a section editor or guest editor will determine whether the piece is appropriate for the journal in collaboration with the journal editor or editorial board if necessary.
AI Guidelines
Authors
- The listed author(s) should be the sole creator(s) of the work. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate body text, craft arguments, or contextualize research is not permitted, as it negates the work’s authorship as defined and understood by the publisher and US copyright law. Surface-level assistance such as grammar and spelling checks is permissible.
- All references cited in the work must be verifiable. It is the author’s responsibility to vet all cited content for credibility upon submission to MSU Press.
- Images and figures used in the work should not be fabricated or edited by generative AI.
- Please check the submission guidelines for individual MSU Press book series or journals for additional AI policies. If the need for further guidance arises, please contact the acquiring, series, or journal editor(s) or MSU Press.
Peer Reviewers
- MSU Press prohibits the use of AI or LLMs in the creation of reader and reviewer reports. Manuscripts under review may not be uploaded, in whole or in part, to any LLM or AI tool. Such an upload is in breach of the intellectual property rights of the submitting author.
- If, during peer review, a reader suspects that AI has been used in the authorship of body text, or that the work contains citations that point to AI-generated content, they should immediately contact the acquiring, series, or journal editor so the matter can be explored further in consultation with the author.
In addition to these policies, MSU Press also follows the Michigan State University Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI Tools.
If there is reason to suspect that an author, reviewer, or other publication participant has not adhered to the Press’s AI policies, please contact the acquiring, series, or journal editor and/or MSU Press. Credible allegations will be handled according to the steps defined in the MSU Press Policy on Research Misconduct.