Migration Letters - Guide for Reviewers/Referees

What is Migration Letters Journal and who reads it?
Migration Letters is an interdisciplinary journal. The journal serves academics, policy makers, students and other
persons or institutions interested in migration theory, research, and practices. ML provides an open forum for those
investigating migration practices.

Migration Letters publishes material directed to scholars, researchers and professionals who work with migrants or on
migration related issues. These individuals include students and researchers as well as policy makers and service
workers. Our reviewers elected to serve because of their knowledge and expertise on migration.

About 20,000 individuals and institutions in more than 150 countries are potential subscribers to ML. Leading research
universities including Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, and Duke universities are also among the subscribers of
the Migration Letters journal.

What does a reviewer/referee for Migration Letters do?
As a member of the Editorial Board or as an ad hoc reviewer, you will be asked to anonymously review manuscripts
submitted to Migration Letters. Editorial Board members review two to three manuscripts per month, and ad hoc
reviewers are invited to review as needed. Each year Migration Letters receives over 100 manuscripts submissions and
these are between 10 and 12 pages or about 3,500 - 4,000 words on average.

We encourage electronic reviews.
Alternatively you can e-mail your review to us by e-mail and if possible using the

We normally allow FOUR to SIX WEEKS for you to read and respond to the manuscript review request. Please note that
adhering to the return deadline is very important in our review process. (If you are on the Editorial Board, we would
appreciate if you could kindly let us know when you will be away for an extended period of time so that we do not direct
manuscripts to you during that period. We would appreciate if you could keep us informed of your address and affiliation

How can a reviewer make an optimum contribution to a writer’s work?
There are several features of a manuscript that should be addressed in an effective review. As editors and contributors
to journals, we appreciate a reviewer’s beginning a review with a brief summary of the article. Following that, we would
suggest structuring the commentary to reflect the four categories used in rating manuscript quality: content, rationale
or reasoning, style, and audience appropriateness. Several questions related to each of these categories are provided
below to help reviewers develop their commentaries:

Freshness and Scope of Content
·  Is the content fresh? Are readers likely to perceive the piece as a contribution to their concerns about migration? Will
readers view the work as current?
·  Does the paper articulate an innovative strategy, program, or perspective? Or does the pa­per provide a fresh view or
synthesis of existing knowledge?

Rationale and/or Reasoning
·  Is the purpose of the article manifest? Does the content of the manuscript clearly align with the purpose? Does the
paper contain material not essential to its purpose?
·  Has the author, as appropriate, provided a sufficient review of the literature to provide a base for the work
·  Are stated conclusions, results, or findings well-documented and sustainable with credible evidence?
·  Do conclusions clearly rest on data presented and analyzed?
·  Does the article contain any unresolved ambiguities or conflicting information?
·  Are conclusions generalizable to other contexts?

·  Is the manuscript’s organization effective?
·  Is the writing lucid, coherent, and well focused?
·  Where appropriate, are the procedures, data, method of analysis, and findings clearly presented?
·  Would a reader find the material accessible?
·  Does a sense of the author’s standpoint and perspective emerge?

Audience Appropriateness
·  Would an audience of specialists respond with enthusiasm to the content of the manuscript?
·  Are readers likely to view information gained from the manuscript as information that would add significantly to their
knowledge and effectiveness?

Answers to these or similar questions are likely to provide authors with the detailed commentary they may need to
revise productively. They will also provide us with important information about your transactions with the text so that
we can draft supportive letters to our authors when we recommend revision and resubmission.

Ranking Manuscripts
1. Reviewers are asked to indicate their judgment of a paper’s content in terms of its being fresh and current.

2. We ask them to determine the degree to which major points are evident, supported, and substantiated.

3. We ask that they evaluate the clarity of the author’s writing and the degree to which it is unpretentious.

4.  We ask that reviewers indicate how appropriate the content of an article is for our reader­ship, which consists
primarily of specialists, researchers, service providers and government professionals.

After you have read, reflected upon, and written about the manuscript, we ask you to provide us with an overall

A)  Accept, with minor editorial changes
B)  Accept with revisions
C)  Revise and resubmit
D)  Reject, not publishable

Your detailed comments will be forwarded to the author of the article and will be the only communication between a
reviewer and an author.

Thank you for serving as a reviewer for Migration Letters. Your contributions of time and thoughtfulness are very much
appreciated, as well as your detailed comments. They will enable Migration Letters to make decisions about the work
that our writers have contributed.

Thank you.

Migration Letters, Editor

Web: http://www.migrationletters.com
ISSN: 1741-8984
e-ISSN: 1741-8992
migration letters
Migration Letters, international peer reviewed journal
Copyright © 2003-2014 Migration Letters / Transnational Press London
All rights reserved | Privacy Policy |
Terms & Conditions | Contact Us | Cover Arts
Individual Subscription
Institutional Subscription