Review Guidelines

Futures Reframed: A Kind and Constructive Review Policy for Reviewers

At Futures Reframed, we value a supportive atmosphere for all scholars, especially early-career researchers or thought-provoking authors who may be trained in a different field than you are. Futures thinking is an interdisciplinary area, and we appreciate valuable knowledge from both academic and non-academic backgrounds. Our kind and constructive review policy encourages thoughtful feedback that allows both you, as reviewer, and the author(s) to learn from and enjoy this collaboration. Here’s how you can contribute:

1. Help Us Maintain a Double Open Review System

Our review system is not double blind but double open. While double-blind processes aim to prevent bias, we believe transparency fosters fair, constructive, and respectful dialogue. Knowing the author's identity can help reviewers offer suggestions that respect the author's unique background and training.

At Futures Reframed, reviewers and authors are matched by the editorial board and thereafter know each other's identities. We understand that there are sometimes valid reasons for not wanting to be a reviewer for a particular article (you know the author too well, or you hope to apply for a position with them later and therefore find it daunting to publicly critique their work). Conversely, an author may prefer that a certain colleague does not review their article. We, as the editorial board, take such requests into account and handle the information discreetly.

Once we have matched an author with you as one of their reviewers, we consider you a team with one goal: collaborating to make a good article into a really, really, really good article.

2. Create Transparent & Experimental Reviews

The review process itself is an experiment, conducted by one of our editorial board members together with two external reviewers and the author(s). Together, they get to decide how they want to conduct the review: This could be a letter thread, a recorded conversation, an online revision form, or a podcast discussing the review process.

Whatever format is selected, we always offer full transparency about the review process to our readers. The end result will always be published online alongside the paper, so readers understand how the collective thinking process came into being. This open review policy acknowledges your contributions explicitly; alongside the author, many other readers can now also learn from your ideas. Furthermore, it helps authors understand not just who comments on their work, but also why; it offers them a fair chance to learn, take on advice, and elegantly reject other tips for good reasons. That is what collaboration really means to us: to sharpen each other’s minds.

3. Take a Mentorship Approach

Think of your review as an opportunity to mentor a colleague. Provide the supportive feedback you would have appreciated as a young scholar or as a researcher who just submitted an article. We value a kind tone in reviewing, where we acknowledge that kindness can also mean being dead honest if that is what is needed to help an author or further improve an article.

We encourage our reviewers to frame criticism constructively to help authors receive feedback without feeling discouraged. Or, in the words of Professor Charles Foster, a Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, and a member of the Oxford Law Faculty: “Even the most woefully inadequate paper has taken a lot of writing and the author will have invested a huge amount of emotional

energy in it. It is terribly easy to be critical, and the criticisms can damage people personally. It is much, much harder to be kind, and therefore to be kind will demonstrate your cleverness far better.” (Reference: Ethics Law and the Business of Being a Human, Against Nine to Five Philosophy. Anthem Press, 2025)

4. Provide Concrete Criticism and Solutions

Provide actionable suggestions for improvement: don’t just point out the problems or weaknesses, but offer tips on what might be a way forward. Instead of vague comments like “this part is unclear,” suggest concrete improvements, such as “add examples to clarify this argument.”

5. Value Disagreement and Debate

Remember that a good paper is not necessarily the one that you would have written. Here comes Charles Foster again, simply because he’s both eloquent and funny: “The fact that you disagree with the author’s conclusion is not a reason for advising against publication. Quite the contrary, in fact. You have been selected as a peer reviewer because of your eminence, which means (let’s face it), your conservatism. Accordingly, if you think the conclusion is wrong, it is far more likely to generate interest and debate than if you agree with it.” (Reference: Ethics Law and the Business of Being a Human, Against Nine to Five Philosophy. Anthem Press, 2025)

6. Be Mindful of Citations

Citations should provide authority for the main propositions, suggest further useful reading, and indicate the paper's original contribution to the existing debate. They should not demonstrate that the author has read everything or knows how to use citation tools. (Reference: Charles Foster, Ethics Law and the Business of Being a Human, Against Nine to Five Philosophy. Anthem Press, 2025)

7. Final and Helpful Questions that can Guide your Feedback sessions

· Strengths: What are the strengths of this manuscript? What did I find interesting or innovative?

· Clarifications: Where might the author clarify or expand on their ideas?

· Practical Advice: What practical advice can I give to enhance their work?

· Relevant Literature: Do I know of any literature that could assist their thinking? While answering this question and providing a long list of literature, please be mindful that there is a potentially infinite number of citations; therefore, some of your favourites won’t be in the list of references, and that’s okay. If you decide to offer suggestions for new literature to the author, keep in mind the main purpose of citations in a paper: they should provide authority for the main propositions, suggest further useful reading, and indicate the paper's original contribution to the existing debate. So, please send articles or scanned book chapters if you really feel these would help improve thinking and writing. Refrain if it’s nice but not needed. Also, kindly refer to your own work only if significantly relevant and in relation to other scholars' work.

 

Thank you, dear reviewer, for helping us create a positive review culture that uplifts authors and strengthens our academic community. We acknowledge that good reviews take much time, and we are so very grateful for the time you are willing to spend on supporting the authors at Futures Reframed, and for exploring with us how science could otherwise be!