Once submitting to JMURJ, the student can expect a multi-step review process where their work is reviewed in the following order. Below are the 3 sequential steps to the review process.

Initial Review

The JMURJ Editorial Board screens all submissions to ensure that they are free of identifying information, appropriately research-oriented, and accessible to a diverse academic audience. If the Editorial Board identifies opportunities for revision during this initial screening, authors may revise and resubmit their work.

Double-Blind Review

Faculty members with expertise in the discipline or in relevant fields serve as JMURJ reviewers. JMURJ reviewers consider three overarching criteria as they evaluate submissions:

  • Is the submission a strong example of the excellent, diverse scholarship done by JMU undergraduate students in the field?
  • Is the research appropriate, accurate, and complete; does it serve the author's central purpose/conclusions?
  • Is the writing clean, clear, effectively organized, and accessible to a diverse academic audience?

Faculty reviewers then offer one of four recommendations to accompany their written feedback: 

  1. Accept with or without revisions
  2. Suggest that the author(s) revise and resubmit to address specific concerns. Revised submissions that respond to reviewers' suggestions will be returned to reviewers for further consideration
  3. Reject, noting that further work might warrant resubmission
  4. Reject, noting that the submission is not suitable for publication in JMURJ

The JMURJ Editorial Board considers faculty reviewers' recommendations and feedback in making decisions and compiles reviewers' feedback to send to authors.

Faculty Review

JMU faculty in disciplines across campus volunteer as JMURJ reviewers.

Faculty reviewers operate within the constraints of the academic year and work with the JMURJ Editorial Board to move submissions through the double-blind peer review process quickly:

  • Reviewers who accept submissions for review work to return their reviews within three weeks
  • Reviewers who have questions regarding their ability to review submissions due to disciplinary applicability should contact the JMURJ Editorial Board as soon as possible
  • Reviewers who identify issues that might affect the integrity of the peer review process should return submissions to the JMURJ Editorial Board as soon as possible

Faculty reviewers send their recommendations to the JMURJ Editorial Board but write their reviews for the authors:

  • Reviewers may recommend that JMURJ publish submissions with or without minor revisions
  • Reviewers may recommend that the authors revise and resubmit their work. Resubmitted work that responds to reviewers’ written feedback will be returned to reviewers for further attention
  • Reviewers may recommend that submissions are not appropriate for publication at this time, noting that further work might warrant resubmission
  • Reviewers may recommend that submissions are not appropriate for publication in JMURJ

Faculty reviewers advance undergraduate scholarly research across James Madison University:

  • Reviewers offer written responses to submissions, affording undergraduate students an introduction to the academic review process
  • Reviewers promote JMURJ, alerting JMU undergraduates to the opportunity for publication and encouraging deserving students to submit their work
  • Reviewers represent JMURJ in the larger JMU community
Author Revisions

JMURJ editors work with authors as they revise their submissions. Revised submissions should be returned by the agreed-upon deadline.

Preparing for Publication

JMURJ editors work as needed with authors of submissions accepted for publication to copyedit and format their work. JMURJ may make final grammar and citation shifts to ensure correctness and consistency.

Back to Top