Guidelines for Reviewers (download)
Anthropology Southern Africa uses the double-blind reviewing system for all research articles submitted for consideration.
Reviewers are requested to provide scholarly reviews that are unbiased, clear and grounded in knowledge of the subject matter at hand. The reviews provide the necessary standard by which both authors and editors can justify the publication of material that would increase knowledge and debate in the region and subject matter. Reviewers are encouraged to be sufficiently detailed in their comments and edits of the document to assist especially emerging scholars, although editors engage intensively with these authors to assist them in preparing their papers for publication.
1. Journal’s aims and scope
The journal aims to promote anthropology in Southern Africa, to support ethnographic and theoretical research, and to provide voices to public debates. Anthropology Southern Africa is committed to contemporary perspectives in social and cultural anthropology and in relevant interdisciplinary scholarship. It looks at the current conditions in post-colonial Southern African, African, and Global society, and aims to provide insightful ethnographic knowledge concerning the challenges of poverty, inequality, migration, and identity, among others.
2. Journal’s editorial policy
Anthropology Southern Africa welcomes the submission of papers based on original research that deals with broadly defined anthropological and ethnographic issues in Southern Africa. Preference is given to submissions presenting new empirical materials and novel theoretical or methodological directions in the region, although we do consider papers based elsewhere in Africa. Authors are encouraged to write in a style accessible to non-specialists.
Anthropology Southern Africa does not have a fixed or set structure for papers and authors are generally free to use their own outline. Papers should centralise the argument and aspects such as literature review, methodology, results should be worked into the argument and not necessarily presented as separate sections. Reviews should assess whether authors have addressed the following:
- Is there a clear structure to the paper?
- Is the introduction sufficiently strong to give readers a basis from which to understand the rest? ❖ Does the order of paragraphs and sections need to change in order to make better sense?
- Does the conclusion work?
- Do the abstract and the paper correlate?
- Is there a clear argument?
- Is the argument succinctly presented, backed up and woven into the text?
- Are theory and data linked well? Does the paper present sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims?
- Does the argument have merit in terms of relevant and up-to-date literature on the specific topic at hand?
- Does the author avoid concepts and principles that are rooted in divisions of race, gender, class, ethnicity or coloniality?
5. Theory and literature
Authors are encouraged to ensure theoretical clarity in their paper and to provide sufficient engagement with theory regarding ethnography and anthropology in the post-colony, and within African Studies as a whole.
The journal strives for theory and literature to become inclusive of minority voices, take cognisance of intersectionality, strive for equity and be inclusive of different forms of knowledge. Reviewers are requested to evaluate how the paper speaks to these aspects.
Is there a clear theory on which to base an argument?
Is the theory anthropological or ethnographic in nature?
Is the theory relevant to address concerns in the African sub-continent?
Is the theory sufficiently rigorous and extensive?
Does the manuscript consider the newest or most relevant literature and debates?
Authors are expected to address ethnographic and anthropological issues in the wider subcontinent and should specifically speak to methodological issues that are relevant to the discipline. Thus:
- Is the methodology anthropological in nature or does it speak to anthropological methods?
- Is the methodology described in such a way that it backs up the claims made in the paper?
7. Language and Grammar
Authors are encouraged to use language that is clear and easily understandable. All accepted submissions undergo an editorial process and careful copy-editing before publication. Reviewers are requested to draw the editor’s attention to any aspect relating to language and grammar that require particular attention during this process.
8. Ethical guidelines
Authors publishing with ASNA are required to reflect research and craft their writing output in line with the ethical standards officially set out by the Anthropology Southern Africa association in 2005 (ASNA 2005).
Reviewers are requested to flag any ethical issues, in particular regarding participant anonymity or unethical conduct in the field, that arise from the paper.
9. Reviewer conflict of interest
Reviewers are requested to immediately inform the editor if any of the following situations regarding the paper under review applies:
you have been involved with the research mentioned in the paper;
you are a colleague in the same department/section/organisation unit as the author/s;
you are a supervisor or in some way involved in the supervision of the author/s of this study;
you have been supervised by the author/s of this study;
you have received or are receiving a professional or personal or financial benefit resulting from the study; or
you have a private or personal interest, including a closer relationship, that could compromise, or have the appearance of compromising, professional judgement and integrity.
10. Scholar One
Our electronic platform is easy and accessible to use. Below please find an example of the “Reviewer Score Sheet” used in ScholarOne Manuscripts (https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rasa) through which we request you to submit your evaluation.
If you experience any problems, please contact the editorial assistant at email@example.com.
12. Reviewer resources
ASNA (Anthropology Southern Africa). 2005. “Ethical Guidelines and Principles of Conduct for Anthropologists.” Anthropology Southern Africa 28 (3&4): 142–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/23323256.2005.11499924
Example Reviewer score sheet
RASA-20xx-xxxx ‐ View Abstract
Paper title xxxx
*= Required Fields
*Do you want to get recognition for this review on Publons?
Don't let your reviewing work go unnoticed! Researchers the world over use Publons to effortlessly track their valuable peer review contributions for any journal. If you opt in, your Publons profile will automatically be updated to show a verified record of this review in full compliance with the journal's review policy. If you don't have a Publons profile, you will be prompted to create a free account. Learn more about Publons
By reviewing this manuscript, you agree for your review comments to be seen confidentially by editors of other related Taylor & Francis journals if the manuscript is rejected and subsequently transferred. This supports a system of portable peer review.
As a thank you and to acknowledge the contribution of our reviewers, the journal may publish a list of the names of those who have reviewed at the end of the year. This will not be linked to any specific paper and will only be done if the list of reviewers is long enough to protect the anonymity of the review process for individual papers. If you would prefer for your name not to be included in a published list of reviewers, please indicate this below.
Do not include my name
* Do you agree for your review to be shared with other reviewers following decision? Please note that it would only be your comments to authors that are shared, NOT your confidential comments to the Editor.
* Do you have any conflict of interest to declare?
If yes, please provide details below:
Would you be willing to review a revision of this manuscript?
Minor Revision Major Revision Reject & Resubmit Reject
Confidential Comments to the Editors
*Comments to the Author
Drop files here or click, to begin. (Max of 10 at a time)