Quality Assurance & Review Process

Individual thematic issues of Berliner Blätter are generally conceived and developed by a team of Guest Editors in close collaboration with the Editorial Board. Thematic issues may emerge from workshops (e.g. issue 86, Food lokal/global), conferences and symposia (e.g. issue 72, Wie plant die Planung?), research-based teaching formats within the Master’s programme, known as study projects (e.g. issue 66, Alltag der Psychiatrie im Wandel, or issue 76, Transparenz), or may engage with current debates in the field (e.g. issues 82–85).

The Editorial Board selects proposals for thematic issues according to the following criteria:

  • the topicality and originality of the theme and its relevance to current disciplinary debates;

  • the quality of the concept and the intellectual development of the theme;

  • the proposed selection and composition of contributions;

  • the expertise of the Guest Editors.

Guest Editors receive guidance and support throughout the conception and preparation of an issue. This may include suggestions for refining the title and/or conceptual framework, as well as support in identifying potential authors, for example through an open call or by directly approaching scholars working on the issue’s theme. The development of each issue is accompanied throughout by at least two members of the Editorial Board, who also ensure compliance with the journal’s formal, academic, ethical and technical standards.

Review Procedures

All research contributions subject to review undergo a multi-stage quality assurance process prior to publication. For each issue, the Guest Editors and the Editorial Board jointly determine whether the research contributions will undergo peer review or editorial review.

In both forms of review, particular attention is paid to the scholarly quality, originality and relevance of the contribution; the coherence and transparency of its material and argumentation; methodological and ethical reflexivity; its engagement with the thematic focus of the issue; and its fit with the overall profile of the journal. The final substantive and formal assessment of all contributions rests with the Editorial Board.

In peer review, each research contribution is assessed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic expertise. Peer review may be conducted as single-anonymous review, in which the reviewers remain anonymous, or as double-anonymous review, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. The review model used is indicated with the published contribution.

In editorial review, each research contribution is assessed by at least two editors with relevant academic expertise. Contributions authored by the Guest Editors themselves are evaluated by independent reviewers.

Editorial Independence and Authorship

Berliner Blätter distinguishes between contribution formats that undergo a formal review process and formats that are assessed editorially. Research articles, exploratory papers and essays, and ethnographic scenes are among the formats subject to formal review. Introductions, conversations and interviews, reviews, conference reports and artistic interventions are generally assessed by the Editorial Board without being designated as formally reviewed research contributions.

For each issue, the proportion of reviewed contributions authored or co-authored by the Guest Editors of the respective thematic issue, members of the Editorial Board, or other persons involved in the editorial process is monitored and limited to a maximum of 25 per cent of all reviewed contributions in that issue.

Contribution Types and Review

The following section provides a more detailed description of the contribution types published in Berliner Blätter. They reflect different forms of ethnographic and scholarly work and are identified accordingly in the online edition. Page and character limits refer to the entire contribution, including the abstract, biographical information and references.

Contributions Subject to Review

Research Articles (15–20 pages, approximately 65,000 characters including spaces) are original scholarly contributions based on empirical research, theoretical analysis, methodological reflection, or systematic engagement with disciplinary debates. Research articles undergo a formal review process prior to publication.

Exploratory Papers and Essays (maximum 15 pages, 50,000 characters) are shorter scholarly contributions that explore and critically examine an empirical, theoretical, methodological or socio-political question or problem. They may be more exploratory in character than research articles but must nevertheless develop a coherent and academically substantiated argument. Exploratory papers and essays undergo a formal review process prior to publication.

Ethnographic Scenes (maximum 12 pages, approximately 40,000 characters) are contributions closely grounded in empirical material that present and reflect on ethnographic observations, situations, fieldwork excerpts or analytical vignettes. Where they are published as research-based contributions, they undergo a formal review process prior to publication.

Editorially Assessed Formats

The following formats are assessed by the Editorial Board with regard to their substantive, formal and ethical quality prior to publication but do not ordinarily undergo the journal’s formal review process. The Editorial Board may request revisions or decline contributions.

Introductions (5–10 pages, approximately 25,000 characters) introduce the respective issue, frame its theme and explain the selection and arrangement of contributions. They are assessed by the Editorial Board but are not designated as formally reviewed research contributions. If the Guest Editors choose to write a longer introduction that constitutes an independent research contribution, it is treated as a research article and undergoes the corresponding review process.

Conversations and Interviews (approximately 10 to a maximum of 15 pages, maximum 50,000 characters) feature exchanges with scholars, artists and cultural practitioners, professionals or other relevant actors on ongoing research, disciplinary perspectives, societal debates or institutional developments. Conversations and interviews are assessed by the Editorial Board but are not designated as formally reviewed research contributions.

Reviews, Conference Reports and Related Formats (3–5 pages, maximum 18,000 characters) are assessed by the Editorial Board but are not designated as formally reviewed research contributions.

Artistic Interventions, whether presented in written or other media formats, are assessed by the Editorial Board with regard to their relevance to and fit with the thematic focus of the respective issue. A short accompanying text providing context for the contribution is welcome but not required.