Submissions

Author Guidelines

It’s all about style…

Please arrange your text in the following way:

• Use a clear structure with chapters, headings and if necessary subheadings.
• Do not insert any automatic Microsoft Word functions (“auto format”), such as automatic headlines, numeration, etc.
• Use a tab instead of spaces for indentation.
• Use endnotes instead of footnotes.
• Be consistent in your choice of either British or American spelling.
• Include a bibliography with a complete list of all publications cited at the end of your article or review.
• Follow the guidelines for citations and formatting set forward by the Harvard Style, in which citations within the text include the author’s name and the date of publication (Gamer 2020).

Please find the detailed style sheet here.

Peer Review Process  

Submission of Contributions

The authors submit contributions to the journal gamevironments via the journal website. As part of the submission process, authors are required to check their submission's compliance with required items you find listed in the submission section. In case contributions don’t meet the requirements of the journal, they can be rejected by the editorial team.

Peer Review Process for Articles

Gamevironments adheres to a double-blind peer review process for articles. Submissions are first assessed by the editorial team, who determine whether the submission is of sufficiently quality to go to peer review. The editorial team will then find an expert reviewer, who will be asked to submit their anonymous review according to the journal’s review form within four weeks. This form includes a section for comments to be seen only by the editorial team and guest editor(s) (if applicable).

Due to the small size of the field, articles are usually assessed by one peer reviewer. If deemed necessary, additional reviewers may be contacted.

Reviewers are asked to state if they have any potential conflicts of interest, for example if they believe they know who the author is.In cases such as these, the reviewer should explain the situation to the editors, who will decide if they should be disqualified from the review or not. If they are disqualified, a new reviewer will be found.

Authors or guest issue editor(s) can appeal to the editorial team if they believe a review to be unfair or insufficient. The editorial team will assess the article again in conjunction with the review and determine whether the appeal has merit. If the appeal is deemed to have merit, a new peer reviewer will be contacted. Depending on specifics of the review and the appeal, the first peer review will be considered alongside the new review or discarded.

Once a paper is accepted, the editorial team will ask the author(s) to submit a revised version of their manuscript based on the review(s) and any additional suggestions that the editors have. If the revisions are deemed insufficient, the author(s) are asked to revise the manuscript again. The article may be pushed to the next issue if there will not be enough time for revisions.

The guidance given to reviewers is as follows:

"Thank you for agreeing to peer review a submission for gamevironments.

Your review will highly contribute to the academic standard of our journal.

Please keep in mind that constructive comments help the best. In order to support the author(s), please give a detailed assessment of the article’s strengths and weaknesses by addressing all questions (you find a form with all these questions when continuing to step #3) that will be shared with the author of the article:

• Is this article relevant to the field of video games/gaming, culture and/or religion?
• Is this article well-written, in a style which makes it comprehensible also to persons not explicitly familiar with the field?
• Is this article clearly structured, including f.e. an introduction, sub-chapters, and conclusion?
• Is there a coherent and well-presented argument, including a precise research question?
• Is there an explicitly named and discussed data sample?
• Does this research use an appropriate methodology? Is that methodology clearly explained?
• Does this article engage with the respective scholarly literature?
• Does this article make a (significant) original contribution to its field?
• Other comments?

You can copy your prepared comments from a document to the online form or write your comments directly into the form online. You can also save the form before submitting it. 

Once you have read the paper and added comments, you may optionally upload the edited review file. Since the process is anonymous, please remember to erase any personal information about yourself in the file.

Further, there is the possibility to include confidential comments for the editors. These comments will not be shared with the author of the article.

Finally, you will be asked to make a recommendation to the editor(s) about the review. To do so, choose one of the following options from the drop-down menu:

• Accept Submission: The submission can move to Copyediting as it is,
• Revisions Required: Changes are required that can be reviewed and accepted by the editor(s),
• Decline Submission: The article contains too many weaknesses and cannot be accepted,
• See Comments: In case none of the aforementioned options apply, you can leave a comment for the editor(s).

Please note: the "Resubmit for Review" option has been retired, but cannot be removed from the system. Please choose another option.

When you have made a recommendation, hit the “Submit Review” button. You are then asked to confirm your choice. Once you have clicked “OK”, you are taken to a screen confirming that you have submitted your review.

Please complete your response within the agreed timeframe and contact the editors if the process will be delayed.

We appreciate your time and energy!"

Editorial Review for Research Reports, Interviews, Game and Book reviews

Other submissions are assessed only by the editorial team and/or the guest editor(s) and are not marked as peer-reviewed. The editorial review is then shared with the author(s) along with the decision. If accepted, authors then revise their submission according to the editorial review.

Review Decision and Response to Review

Authors or guest issue editors can appeal to the editorial team if they believe a review to be unfair or insufficient. The editorial team will assess the article again in conjunction with the review and determine whether the appeal has merit. If the appeal is deemed to have merit, a new peer reviewer will be contacted.

Depending on specifics of the review and the appeal, the first peer review will be considered alongside the new review or discarded.

Authors who are required to revise their manuscript must submit three documents: the revised document with tracked changes, the revised document without tracked changes, and a response to review in which the author outlines how they have addressed the review(s).

Preparation for Publication

All contributions must be formatted according to the journal’s style. You can find the style guide here. After acceptance, articles will enter into a copyediting, proofreading and layout editing process, during which the author will need to review and approve changes, deal with any issues that arise, provide author information and sign copyright forms. If the author is unable to respond in a timely manner to these requests, their contribution may be pushed to the next issue or, if it had already been pushed, rejected.