Requirements for Reviews and Reviewers
The requirement for reviewers is to encourage sub-, intra- and interdisciplinary dialogs. The task is to offer insights into the respective research field to FQS readers, independent of their discipline(s). Above all, reviews should introduce the respective context of a field of activity in an understandable way and should outline the respective research topics in order to clarify the specific contribution of the media unit(s) therein. Summaries of contents, therefore, should to be avoided. Instead, contents should be discussed while considering the background of the respective research field and should be evaluated critically. Please see also the following Editorial Notes:
- Reevaluating Book Reviews—As Scientific Contributions
- 2 Years FQS Review: 18 Publishers, 74 Reviews, 3383 Mails
- Standards, Expectations, and Potentials of On-line Reviews. Using the Special Issue: FQS Reviews II to Provide Some Considerations and an Invitation to Share in Further Discussions
In order to be selected as worthy of reviewing, a media unit must belong to the wide area of qualitative social research. In particular, it must deal with the theoretical and methodological bases of qualitative research empirical studies with a recognizable link to qualitative methodology. This is particularly important, when dealing with one of the following topics: "Sign – Body – Identity," Work – School – Organizations – Institutions," "(Public) Health – Psychotherapy" or "Online Research – (New) Media."
Kinds of Reviews
Reviews can be constructed as
- Review essays
- Collective reviews of several units
- Review symposia
Media units should be presented as a substantial outline of the research field, framed by a short introduction which makes a connection between the media unit and the research field under consideration and should be followed by an evaluation.
b) Review essay
Review essays should go far beyond a summary of the contents. The research field should be briefly introduced with reference to other publications in order to clarify whether the reviewed media unit contributes to this field or not. The claims raised by the media unit should be evaluated as well.
c) Collective reviews
Collective reviews are produced by a reviewer (or a review team) reviewing more than one media unit dealing with a specific topic. The aim of the review is to unveil how these media units contribute to the research area under consideration in a comparative discussion. Collective reviews are not just a loose collection of single reviews. Instead, they should help to clarify the respective research field by bringing the contrasting contributions of the specific media units together.
d) Review symposium
Review symposia are reviews of one (or more) media unit(s) by several authors or author teams. Review symposiums can be held in different ways:
- The traditional way of informing the readership about possible diverging perspectives is to ask for several reviews of one media unit. Several brief reviews are introduced and subsequently commented upon by an (additional) author.
- In addition, we welcome special efforts to organize interactive on-line review symposia of media unit(s), for example, chat-conferences, where the author(s) or the editor(s) of the media unit are also included.
- Finally, it is also possible to publish a report about an off-line discussion of a media unit.
Note: We do not prescribe a formal range of minimum/maximum words, as the length of the review should depend on the respective media unit and the individual reviewer's perspective.
Announcement of Reviews and Ordering Media Units
Suggestions for reviews can be submitted to the Book Review-Editor by interested authors. It is not advisable to send a review without previous consultation as we like to first explore whether the media unit is likely to be interesting to the FQS readership. For reviews without prior inquiry, there is no guarantee for publication.
Media units, which are offered to the editorship for reviewing, will be placed on the list of available media units; interested reviewers may also request the media unit from the Book Review-Editor.
Time Schedule for Reviewing
The FQS Book Review-Editor should immediately be informed once the media unit(s) is (are) received.
Reviews should be submitted within six months after receiving the consent of the Book Review-Editor and/or receipt of the media unit. Earlier submissions are appreciated; if you are not able to finish the review on time, please inform the Book Review-Editor. Although this deadline might seem rather short, it is necessary in order to prevent considerable delays between the publication of the media unit(s) and the publication of the reviews as well as to offer our readership up-to-date information.
The submitted reviews will be evaluated according to the criteria listed in the paragraph "Requirements for Reviews", and if they do not fit this criteria, suggestions to revise may be given by the FQS editorship.
Guidelines for Layout
The guidelines for FQS Reviews follow the Guidelines for Layout valid for any manuscripts submitted to FQS (while review essays should provide a characterizing header, this is not necessary for reviews). In addition to these guidelines, reviews and review essays should contain bibliographic information about the author, title, place of publication and publisher, ISBN (and for book series, if necessary, the ISSN), and prices (the place of publication as well as for the currencies sFr, US$, EUR, GB Pound).
- List of Available Media Units
- Published Reviews (comming soon)