Nordic Open Access Scholarly Publishing (NOASP) publishes work of high academic quality, and all scholarly articles published in our journals are subject to peer review. (Other types of journal content – editorials, book reviews, commentaries, etc. – are not peer-reviewed.) As a member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), we are engaged with the association in developing best practice in Open Access publishing.
Copyright and licensing policies
All NOASP content is released under open licenses from Creative Commons, and authors always retain copyright. Most of our books and journal articles are published with a CC BY 4.0 license. However, depending on the circumstances or if an author wishes to publish with a different Creative Commons license, our staff provide guidance in choosing the appropriate one.
Our journals’ routines may vary, but in general, the procedure is the same. Upon receipt of a manuscript, a journal’s editors will evaluate whether it fits within the specific journal’s publishing profile and meets basic standards of quality. Manuscripts are also screened through the online plagiarism detection service, iThenticate.
If the manuscript passes the preliminary editorial review, the next step is a double-blind peer review by two independent peers who hold a relevant doctoral degree or equivalent and are familiar with the actual topic(s). As a rule, one of the peers will be from the same country as the author or will be familiar with the professional tradition in the relevant country. Peers are not remunerated for their work on behalf of the journal.
In addition to an in-depth evaluation of the scholarly merit of the manuscript, the referee will be asked to evaluate:
- The logical coherence, structure and legibility of the manuscript,
- The current interest, value and relevance of the manuscript,
- Whether the issues addressed are discussed and analysed in a proper way,
- Whether the conclusions are supported by sources and data,
- Whether the use of sources is conscientious and methodologically acceptable,
- Whether the references are satisfactory and in accordance with the editorial instructions.
The peer will also be asked whether he/she recommends publication; publication after improvements; or does not recommend publication. Authors receive anonymized copies of referee comments. The journal’s editors make the final decision regarding acceptance/rejection of the manuscript.
More information regarding the peer-review process can be found on the journals’ own websites: NOASP Journals
Our journals have varying policies regarding publication fees. Some charge an article processing charge (APC) for peer-reviewed content and others do not. Please check the specific journal’s own website for detailed information about fees and fee waivers.