Member Record: The MIT Press
| Title | The MIT Press |
| Class |
Professional Publisher (Large) |
| URL | mitpress.mit.edu |
| Owner | MIT Press is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| Address | The MIT Press One Broadway, Floor 12 Cambridge, MA 02142 |
| Copyright and Licensing | https://direct.mit.edu/journals/pages/authors#copyright |
| Copyright and Licensing Policy | More fully described at the page above, but this is the relevant excerpt.
In order to effectively fulfill the information requirements of your colleagues and others who would benefit from access to your research as noted above, MIT Press asks that you transfer the copyright for your article to MIT Press or to the Journal's sponsor for the reasons listed below. Please note that for our fully Open Access journals, you may retain copyright to your article if you so choose. For more information, please contact the Rights and Permissions Dept.at journals-rights@mit.edu. We assume responsibility for preventing copyright infringement. We register all of our publications with the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress. We have existing relationships with all of the major information brokers. This enables MIT Press to act as an effective focal point for the administration of copyright licenses and applications. We continually work to develop additional forms for dissemination of your article. Some of these forms -- such as on-line databases, CD-ROMs of back issues, cumulative indices and abstract services in various formats or simple reprints -- are developed and administered by MIT Press. Other systems are made possible by sub-contracts with vendors such as the Copyright Clearance Center whose systems can only represent publications in their entirety. We support your right to reuse your own material easily. You can: Photocopy and distribute the article for your own academic or research purposes in paper or electronic form. Republish the article (or a revised version of the article) in another book you write, edit, or in an anthology you prepare, giving first publication credit to this journal. This applies only to books you author or edit as a whole. When only contributing to a chapter to a new work that someone else is working on, then that editor or publisher needs to contact us to get permission. Post your article on your own website or your institution’s author repository, after the specified embargo period listed in your publication agreement, as long as you don’t offer it for sale or commercial distribution. Such requests should be directed to the publisher. Please see our author posting guidelines. Please Note: Material (text or illustrations) that has been reprinted by permission from third-party sources is, of course, not covered by this agreement unless full rights were given to you. |
| Complaint email | https://mitpress.mit.edu/contact-us |
| Complaint policy | We are currently revising our complaints policy (due end of 2021) |
| Publication charge link | It varies by journal. https://direct.mit.edu/journals/pages/open-access |
| Publication charge policy | There is no explicit policy per se. |
| OASPA Compliant OA Journals | 14 |
| OA articles approx. number in 12 months |
500 |
| OASPA Compliant OA Books | Currently 20-30 per year; likely expand to 90-100 in CY 2022 |
| Initiatives | All journals that are not purely OA offer hybrid options. We also have a preprint peer review overlay journal that is OA: https://rapidreviewscovid19.mitpress.mit.edu/. In addition to that we are attempting to make all MIT Press monographs OA starting in 2022 via our Direct to Open program https://direct.mit.edu/books/pages/direct-to-open We have also engaged in publishing Works in Progress openly: https://wip.mitpress.mit.edu/ |
| Peer review process | This varies by journal. For example https://direct.mit.edu/desi/pages/submission-guidelines |
| Peer review policy | These are too varied to have a single policy, below is an example.
Design Issues and Peer Review The purpose of this guidance is to brief authors on the process through which their manuscripts will be reviewed for publication in Design Issues and to support our peer reviewers in meeting the Editorial Board’s expectations. The Value of Peer Review For Design Issues the peer review process has four specific benefits among others. It helps to: (1) ensure the publication of high quality research, (2) validate the integrity and trustworthiness of the scholarly record, (3) assist in the further development of an author’s manuscript, and (4) build the knowledge base that helps define a scholarly community. In of itself, peer review is a continuous process that helps advance the integrity and quality of published work so that it contributes to the pool of knowledge underpinning design research. The mission of Design Issues aligns with these aims. The Principles of Peer Review Excellence Manuscripts selected for publication will demonstrate the highest standards of excellence as assessed by experts in the field. Impartiality Expert peer reviewers will be selected against clear criteria and required to undertake their work without bias or conflict of interest. All manuscripts submitted to Design Issues will be treated equally regardless of their origin or identity of the authors. Transparency All manuscripts will be considered against the review criteria set out for Design Issues (see below). All authors will receive adequate feedback on their proposals to which they may respond. Efficiency The review process at Design Issues has evolved to provide robust assessments within the shortest timescales possible and without unnecessarily overloading peer reviewers. Confidentiality Data and intellectual property will be treated confidentially by all persons or agencies involved in the processes of peer review undertaken on behalf of Design Issues. The Criteria for Peer Review All manuscripts received by Design Issues will go before the Editorial Board and there will be no desk rejections prior to their consideration. In reading manuscripts the Editorial Board will apply two sets of criteria: Threshold criteria Does the manuscript fall within the editorial scope of Design Issues? Is the use of academic English sufficient to merit publication? Quality criteria The originality of the author’s argument The clarity and completeness of the argument (e.g., does the author take into account the relevant literature?) The persuasiveness of the author’s conclusions (e.g., is the method and evidence provided by the author rigorous and adequate?) The accessibility of the author’s writing style The Stages of Peer Review The full process of peer review has three stages through which some, but not all, manuscripts will progress: Stage one—new submissions; Stage two—peer reviewer feedback; Stage three—revised manuscripts. The Design Issues Editorial Board meets monthly to fully discuss and progress each manuscript through each of these three stages. Stage One For each new proposal the Board will make one of the following decisions: If the editors judge that a manuscript does not meet the threshold criteria (see above), it will receive no further consideration from the Board and be declined. If a manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements for publication (where, for example, it exceeds the maximum word limit set out for Design Issues or does not meet its citation or bibliographic requirements) but has merits, the author[s] may be first offered an opportunity to make revisions before consideration. If the editors judge that a manuscript does not sufficiently meet the quality criteria for it to be sent out to peer review, it will be readily declined. If the editors judge that a manuscript does meet the quality criteria, it will be sent out to peer reviewers for their independent assessment. If the editors conclude that all aspects of a manuscript are of such a high quality of excellence that it should be put into the public domain without further delay, it will be directly accepted for publication. Stage Two At this stage the Editorial Board will consider feedback and advice from peer reviewers (who will have been asked to assess manuscripts against the quality criteria [see above]) and then make one of the following decisions: Publish as is Publish with minor revisions Revise & Resubmit Decline Where the Editorial Board decides that the author(s) should have an opportunity to consider either minor or major revisions, appropriate guidance will be given by an Editorial Board member who has been identified to liaise with the author(s). This guidance may include a synopsis of key points made by the Editorial Board after considering the peer reviewer’s feedback or may include the reviewer’s observations in full (whichever is most helpful to the author[s]). Stage Three At this stage the Editorial Board will decide either to: Publish Decline If the Board decides to decline a manuscript, it will provide the author(s) with an adequate explanation for the reasoning behind its decision. Beyond this the Editorial Board’s decision is final and there is no process for appeal. The Process of Peer Review The Editorial Board alone is responsible for deciding which manuscripts are to be published in Design Issues after taking account of advice and feedback from independent experts in the field. The process of peer review, as operated by Design Issues, is double blind (i.e., neither the author(s) nor the peer reviewer(s) will know each other’s identity at any stage of the process). The Editorial Board will identify peer reviewers from its international network of experts and match their expertise to the substance of the research under review. Peer review is a confidential process between the editors, author(s), and reviewer(s) and all parties will respect this confidentiality. Peer reviewers are required to review manuscripts personally and not to pass this responsibility onto another person without the Journal’s specific knowledge and agreement. No information gathered through the review process will be used to advantage or disadvantage any other researcher or research. All communications and interactions between the reviewer(s) and the author(s) will be managed through the Editorial Board. A peer review will be owned by its author; and in submitting peer review assessments, reviewers grant the Journal’s Editorial Board the right to make their blinded peer reviewer comments available to the author(s) should the Board decide to do so. Becoming a Peer Reviewer for Design Issues Many authors benefit from the process of peer review. Their experience is an invaluable resource to the continued health of the design research community. Those authors wishing to become a peer reviewer for Design Issues should send their CV to the Journal’s Managing Editor Gail Papay for consideration by the Editorial Board: gail.papay@case.edu |