As of September, 2016, Heathwood Press is actively seeking out reviewers to join its expanding editorial staff. If you might be interested in joining us, please read the description below to get a sense of who we are looking for, and what becoming a Reviewing Editor with us would mean.


We expect Reviewing Editors to be available on an ongoing basis to review articles that they possess the requisite knowledge to review, barring extreme circumstances. When receiving an article to work on, the Reviewing Editor will receive an email from the Submissions Editor with the article-to-review attached. The Reviewing Editor must confirm by email receipt of the article within one week, indicating whether they can or cannot review the article according to their own knowledge base and outside obligations. Because of our emphasis on methodological innovation, articles are likely to bridge disciplines, and Reviewing Editors will often not be knowledgeable across the disciplines covered in the article. The submissions editor anticipates this, and will solicit reviews from multiple people in order to cover the disciplines consulted in each article. Review what in within the fields of study that you are qualified to review, and leave what you are not qualified for. Others will take care of it. Comments should be returned to the Submissions Editor in an email, sent within 3 months of the date of the original email sent by the Submissions Editor.

When the Submissions Editor receives all Reviewing Editors’ comments on a given article, the comments will be discussed among the Executive Editor, Managing Editor, and Advising Editor during the subsequent staff meeting. At this meeting, the aforementioned editors will assess a) if the article earns a ‘Reject,’ ‘Revise and Resubmit (R&R),’ ‘Accept with Revisions,’ or ‘Accept without Revisions,’ and b) whether the reviewer comments support Heathwood’s editorial mission as described in the section below. If reviewer comments do not support Heathwood’s mission, the Submissions Editor will request that reviewers edit their comments accordingly.

A resubmitted R&R article will go out to the original reviewers of that article just as in the first round of reviews, and reviewer comments in this second round should be sent to the Submissions Editor within 2 months. A resubmitted ‘Accept with Revisions’ article will have 1 month in review.


We place great emphasis on methodological innovation. This means we are interested in work that transcends customary boundaries, that builds new bridges, that takes risks. We are interested in novel uses of cross-disciplinarity, mixed-methods and multiple methodologies, in novel connections between the theoretical and the empirical, the scientific and the interpretive. In many academic journals, a common standard used when judging methodologies is: “Is this how it is done?” If the answer is “yes,” the article passes the test. We place emphasis on the opposite question: “Does this transcend how it is done?” If the answer is “yes,” you have piqued our interest. A Heathwood reviewer must be able to assess articles accordingly.

We believe in maintaining rigorous standards of scholarship. Contributing authors are expected to be aware of prominent, current perspectives and debates in their fields of study, and to address these perspective and debates as they apply to their topics of study. Our reviewers must be similarly informed, in order to determine if an author has addressed current perspectives and debates. This does not mean, however, that authors need to agree with current orthodoxies. A Heathwood reviewer must be able to spot an atypical argument and, instead of ‘correcting’ the author to adopt the typical argument, assess whether the author has a) providing a compelling, reasoned justification for their argument, and b) addressed the typical argument, and defended why they take an atypical approach instead. In connection with this, methodological innovations face an uphill battle that en vogue approaches avoid: they require new justification. Authors must be able to provide a compelling argument for the viability of their methodological approaches. Reviewers must be able to assess these arguments not in terms of whether they conform to orthodoxies, but in terms of whether they a) are compelling and reasoned, and b) include informed reference to orthodox approaches.

Reviewing Editors must be respectful to authors. Heathwood prides itself on undertaking a human approach when engaging with authors. We ask that you treat authors with respect in your comments. Be critical, if necessary; but critical as in “critical thinking,” not critical as in derogatory. We are interested in reviewers that can use critical thinking to challenge authors to make their work more robust, and to do this in a way which clearly conveys respect.

Heathwood is dedicated to addressing the roots of social, economic, and environmental crises. Accordingly, articles must have relevance for contemporary social, economic, and/or environmental issues. Reviewers must be able to assess whether articles succeed in doing this. At the same time, Heathwood does not ascribe to any specific political ideology, party, or program. At the same time, Heathwood does not ascribe to any specific political ideology, party, or program. We are interested in critical thinking. Hence, reviewers should not impose their values on contributing authors. Reviewing Editors at Heathwood must be able to spot compelling reasoning by those with whom they disagree, as well as shoddy reasoning by those with whom they agree, and to direct their comments to authors’ reasoning, not to their apparent political positions or implications. Reviewers may ask authors to be more explicit in acknowledging political positions or implications in their reasoning, but they may not demand that authors convert their arguments to align with reviewers’ political inclinations.


If you are interested in becoming a Reviewing Editor at Heathwood, or if you want more information about the editorial process or the Editorials blog, please contact us.