For Submitters
All papers require the following for submission:
Title Author(s) name Abstract Key words (up to five) and category (up to two) Date of publication (month/year) Paper number [FILLED BY ADMIN]Submitters are also offered the opportunity to present their work as a seminar or workshop. Please send any enquiries or submissions to lms56@cam.ac.uk in the first instance.
For Reviewers
The papers submitted to the WPS are largely work in progress so the purpose of critical review is to provide professional dialogue in order to support and help progress the papers to publication stage. Comments will not be anonymised as this process is designed to generate constructive professional comment. Please see below the REF (2014) criteria for information only. You might find it useful to refer to these but it is not obligatory.
You are welcome to give feedback either through written comment on the paper itself or through a short commentary on how the paper might be developed. Comments should come in the first instance to the Editor via lms56@cam.ac.uk to ensure a record of responses.
If all reviewers are agreed the paper is ready for the public Working Papers Series website please indicate that in your comments. If all reviewers agree that some development is desirable we are happy to receive a further resubmission with a tabulated indication from the author(s) of how the comments have been responded to and with those changes in red text so that reviewers can access changes efficiently.
We would be grateful to receive comments within two weeks of your invitation to review.
REF (2014) criteria
Overall quality profile: Definitions of starred levels
- Four star Quality that is world-leading in terms of originality significance and rigour.
- Three star Quality that is internationally excellent in terms of originality significance and rigour but which falls short of the highest standards of excellence.
- Two star Quality that is recognised internationally in terms of originality significance and rigour.
- One star Quality that is recognised nationally in terms of originality significance and rigour.
- Unclassified Quality that falls below the standard of nationally recognised work. Or work which does not meet the published definition of research for the purposes of this assessment.