Peer Review Policy

STRATUM Journal

ISSN 3070-8869 · Open Access

Current Issue

STRATUM Journal uses different review models for different publication sections.

Research Articles are subject to peer review. Critical Essays, Reviews, Interviews & Conversations, Artist Features & Portfolios, Field Notes & Public Discourse, and Experimental Writing & Series are reviewed editorially.

This structure allows STRATUM to support rigorous scholarship while also making space for critical, artistic, curatorial, conversational, and experimental forms of knowledge.

Research Articles • Peer Review

Editorial Sections • Editorial Review

Peer-Reviewed

Research Articles are reviewed through a peer review process.

After an initial editorial screening, submissions that are considered suitable for STRATUM’s scope may be sent to reviewers with relevant expertise in the field. Reviewers are asked to assess the submission’s originality, clarity, scholarly contribution, methodological care, engagement with existing research, and relevance to the journal’s intellectual and artistic scope.

Peer review is used to support scholarly quality, strengthen argumentation, and ensure that published research contributes meaningfully to contemporary art, performance, visual culture, moving image, curatorial practice, critical theory, or the global arts and humanities.

Editorially Reviewed

The following sections are reviewed by the editorial team:

Critical Essays
Reviews
Interviews & Conversations
Artist Features & Portfolios
Field Notes & Public Discourse
Experimental Writing & Series

Editorial review considers clarity, relevance, critical value, artistic significance, contextual strength, publication readiness, and alignment with STRATUM’s scope.

Editorially reviewed work is not presented as peer-reviewed scholarship unless it has undergone a peer review process.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions are first reviewed by the editorial team.

During this stage, editors consider whether the submission:

Fits STRATUM’s aims and scope
Belongs to an appropriate publication section
Shows sufficient clarity, originality, and editorial relevance
Meets basic submission and formatting expectations
Raises any concerns related to plagiarism, permissions, ethics, or conflicts of interest

Submissions may be declined at the editorial screening stage if they fall outside the journal’s scope, lack sufficient critical development, function primarily as promotion, or are not ready for review.

Peer Review Process for Research Articles

Research Articles that pass the initial editorial screening may be sent for peer review.

Where possible, STRATUM seeks reviewers with relevant expertise in the submission’s field, method, artistic context, or theoretical framework.

Reviewers may be asked to comment on:

Originality and contribution
Clarity of argument
Methodological care
Engagement with relevant scholarship
Use of evidence, documentation, or artistic materials
Relationship between form, method, and content
Relevance to STRATUM’s scope
Readability and structure
Suitability for publication

After review, the editorial team considers reviewer feedback and communicates a decision to the author.

Possible Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions may include:

Accept
Accept with minor revisions
Revise and resubmit
Decline with invitation to submit a substantially revised version
Decline

A request for revision does not guarantee publication. Revised manuscripts may be reviewed again by the editorial team and, when necessary, returned to reviewers.

The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the relevant editors.

Reviewer and Author Responsibilities

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are asked to provide fair, constructive, and field-informed feedback.

Reviewers should:

Evaluate the submission on its scholarly and editorial merits
Identify strengths and areas for revision
Respect the confidentiality of the review process
Disclose any potential conflicts of interest
Avoid using unpublished materials from the submission for their own work
Provide feedback within the agreed timeline when possible

Author Responsibilities

Authors are responsible for submitting original work and for properly acknowledging all sources, collaborators, images, archives, permissions, funding support, and prior publication history.

Authors should:

Submit work that is original and not under simultaneous consideration elsewhere, unless clearly disclosed
Follow STRATUM’s Author Guidelines
Remove identifying information from manuscripts submitted for peer review when requested
Respond to reviewer and editorial feedback with care
Disclose conflicts of interest
Disclose substantial use of AI-assisted tools when relevant
Secure permissions for images, documentation, film stills, installation views, and other media materials

Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers should not participate in the evaluation of a submission when there is a conflict of interest that could affect impartial judgment.

Potential conflicts may include close personal, professional, institutional, financial, or collaborative relationships with the author or project under review.

When a conflict is identified, STRATUM will seek another editor or reviewer whenever possible.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential materials.

Editors and reviewers should not share, quote, circulate, or use unpublished submissions without permission from the author and the journal.

Review Timeline

Review timelines may vary depending on submission volume, reviewer availability, and the nature of the manuscript.

As a general guideline:

Initial editorial screening: 2–4 weeks
Peer review for Research Articles: 6–10 weeks when external review is required
Editorial review for non-research sections: 3–6 weeks
Revision period: determined according to the extent of requested revisions

STRATUM will make reasonable efforts to communicate with authors in a timely and transparent manner.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may contact the editorial team if they believe a review or editorial decision involved a procedural error, conflict of interest, or misunderstanding of the submission.

Appeals should be made in writing and should clearly explain the concern. Appeals are reviewed by the editorial team, and where appropriate, by an editor who was not directly involved in the original decision.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

Transparency of Review Status

STRATUM identifies the review status of published work according to section.

Research Articles may be marked as peer-reviewed. Editorially reviewed work is marked or categorized according to its section, such as Critical Essay, Interview, Review, Artist Portfolio, Field Note, or Experimental Writing.

STRATUM does not retroactively label work as peer-reviewed if it did not undergo peer review before publication.

Related Pages

About STRATUM Journal