Thank you for agreeing to referee this article for Kult.
Kult is a research journal, which connects a series of discussion fields, which could all be categorised under the umbrella term, postcolonial Denmark. Aside from the specific interest in postcolonial Denmark, Kult has also taken an interest in discussions outside Denmark, which Kult considers helpful in terms of developing other challenging perspectives that can offer new insights into Danish conceptualisations of a national self. Kult is a journal series of special issues, and we therefore ask reviewers to take the theme of the special issue into consideration, when reviewing the content of the articles.
For us to make use of your referee statement in the best possible way we have drawn up some guidelines which we kindly ask you to consider during your evaluation of the article. We would like an overall assessment but also welcome concrete examples of potential criticism as well as suggestions for improvement. Please return the manuscript with comments, references etc. along with a separate sheet containing follow-up on references and other elaborating commentary.
- Structure: Is the article coherent? Is the problem presented in a clear manner and is the article well-structured? Too long/too short? Would it benefit from omissions?
- Assessment of contents: Does the choice of theory and empirical material seem relevant? Should other material or perspectives have been included (i.e. any crucial flaws or gaps in the manuscript)? Do theory, method, and empirical material seem coherent? Is the article cogent and do you find it interesting?
- Form: Does the article comply with the prescribed technicalities (notes, works cited, tables etc.)? See the style guide at “information for authours”
- Language: Is the article linguistically intelligible? Does the degree of difficulty seem reasonable?
- Overall assessment: After finishing the article, will the readers be more informed? Does the article contribute new insights to its field of study? Please offer an overall assessment of strengths and weaknesses in the article as well as any suggestions for improvement.
Based on your response, would you recommend that we:
a) Print the article as is after routine editorial adjustments
b) Return the article for revision
c) Return the article for rewriting due to doubtful quality
d) Reject the article
We would like to stress the fact that referee statements are anonymous. The identity of the referee is unknown to the author of the article, and the referee statement stays between referee and editorial staff. All correspondence with the author of the article is handled by the editors of the relevant issue. As referee you are also responsible for maintaining this anonymity.