Submit a Manuscript
Editorial Policies
Peer Review
Research Articles and Research Notes are peer-reviewed before publication. Commentaries are usually not peer-reviewed. Nevertheless, even Commentaries, particularly if they present technical information, may be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.
We use a double-blind review, in which the authors’ and reviewers’ identities and affiliations are concealed from each other. To facilitate this review process, authors must anonymize their manuscript and all files. For more information on how to anonymize manuscripts and files, please see the Blind Peer Review section in our Author Guidelines.
In line with our mission, we strive to assign peer reviewers to manuscripts as quickly as possible upon submission. Each manuscript is assigned at least two reviewers. Reviewers are typically given seven working days to review manuscripts. Review criteria include three elements: (1) real-world applications & implications, (2) validity & reliability, and (3) clarity & style.
Reviewers can recommend either minor revisions (expected to be completed within two to three weeks) or rejection. No manuscripts are accepted for publication without requesting revisions.
Please note that all submitting authors agree to serve as peer reviewers on two papers submitted by other authors for publication consideration in the future.
For any general questions and comments about the peer-review process, the journal, or its editorial policies that are not addressed here, please contact the Editorial Desk at misinforeview@hks.harvard.edu.
Editorial Decisions
Final editorial decisions are made by the Editorial Committee. Although we seriously consider the reviewers’ advice, we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other relevant information not available to either party.
After the initial reviews, we may go back to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where reviewers disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood. We, therefore, ask that reviewers be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested.
When reviewers initially agree to review a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions as well. However, editors will not send resubmitted papers to the referees if the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the referees’ criticisms.
We invite authors to revise manuscripts when the review reports suggest that a paper could be publishable if it were improved by revision and clarification. However, the invitation to revise does not guarantee publication. The Editorial Committee assesses how the reviewers’ comments have been addressed and decides whether to: (1) accept the manuscript in the category designated by the authors (Research Article or Research Note) as is, (2) accept the manuscript in the category designated by the authors pending very minor revisions, (3) decide to publish the manuscript that was initially submitted as a Research Article as a Research Note, or (4) reject the manuscript. Given our compressed publication timeline, we do not offer multiple rounds of revision. If a paper shows promise but is deemed not to be ready for publication after the first revision, the Editorial Committee will move to reject it.
Plagiarism Policy
Plagiarism is not acceptable in submissions to the HKS Misinformation Review.
Plagiarism is unacknowledged copying or an attempt to misattribute original authorship, whether of ideas, text, images, or results. It occurs when substantial portions of text are copied and pasted without appropriate attribution and/or with ambiguous attribution. Aside from wholesale verbatim reuse of text, due care must be taken to ensure appropriate attribution and citation when paraphrasing and summarizing the work of others. Text recycling, or reusing portions of text from an author’s previous publication, constitutes self-plagiarism and likewise requires due caution. In all cases, whether reusing text from one’s own work or that of others, appropriate attribution and citation are necessary to avoid creating a misleading perception of a unique contribution.
The HKS Misinformation Review uses Crossref Similarity Check to screen submitted articles for originality. If the software raises any concerns, the editorial team will do a follow-up investigation.
We expect that editors and reviewers will be vigilant in their evaluation of submissions and will raise any suspicions of plagiarism by contacting the Editor-in-Chief or the Managing Editor.
If plagiarism is detected or reported at any stage, we will follow COPE guidelines. If plagiarism is detected during the peer review process, the manuscript may be rejected. If plagiarism becomes evident post-publication, we may correct or retract the original publication depending on the degree of plagiarism, the context within the published article, and its impact on the overall integrity of the published study.
Duplicate Publication
Material submitted to the HKS Misinformation Review must be original and not published elsewhere. Duplicate publication occurs when an author reuses substantial parts of their own published work without providing the appropriate references. This can range from publishing an identical or almost identical paper in multiple outlets to only adding a small amount of new data to a previously published paper. If a manuscript has been published previously or will appear elsewhere, it will not be considered for publication in the HKS Misinformation Review.
Preprints
The HKS Misinformation Review encourages posting of preprints of research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors’ or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms. Preprints may be posted at any time during the peer review process. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration at the HKS Misinformation Review.
Authors should disclose details of preprint posting, including DOI and licensing terms, upon submission of the manuscript or at any other point during consideration at the HKS Misinformation Review. Once the preprint is published, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the HKS Misinformation Review website.
Conference Papers
The HKS Misinformation Review will consider submissions of conference papers as long as they have not been published. However, the paper should provide a substantial extension of results, methodology, analysis, conclusions, and/or implications over the conference paper. We expect at least 40% new content to be added to a conference paper. The final decision on what constitutes a substantial extension is made by the Editorial Committee. In addition, authors must ensure that extended conference papers submitted to the HKS Misinformation Review (1) contain a specific note referencing the conference and providing information about the extended content and (2) do not involve copyright infringement and self-plagiarism.
Special Issue Proposals
Special Issue proposals should be made via email to the Editorial Desk at misinforeview@hks.harvard.edu. To suggest a Special Issue, please send a two-page proposal outlining the collection’s specific intervention in misinformation research, its scholarly and real-world applications and implications, and how the issue fits within the main objectives and scope of the journal. In addition to the two-page proposal, please include a list of confirmed contributors, their institutional affiliations, and a single-paragraph abstract describing each contribution, including its framing within the special issue theme.
Upon receiving the proposal, the Editor-in-Chief will make an initial determination regarding the proposed Special Issue in consultation with the Editorial Committee. If the proposal is accepted, Guest Editors will be responsible for ensuring that Special Issue article submissions fulfil the same requirements as regular article submissions (e.g., adhere to our article format, highlight real-world applications and implications, avoid academic jargon, follow the APA 7 reference style), communicate the submission timeline with authors, and recommend reviewers. Guest Editors should also be prepared to provide an Editorial for the Special Issue. The initial editorial check as well as the review and revision processes will be led by the journal’s editorial team. Final publication decisions are made by the Editorial Committee.
Please note that accepting a proposal is not a guarantee of publication. To ensure the success of a Special Issue, a minimum of five articles must be published. If this pre-agreed minimum is not met, accepted papers will be published individually. If it is met, the editorial team will communicate the timeframe for publication.
If a Special Issue proposal consists of papers presented at a conference or workshop, Guest Editors must ensure that (1) each manuscript provides a substantial extension of results, methodology, analysis, conclusions, and/or implications over the conference paper (i.e., at least 40% new content added to a conference paper) and (2) there is no copyright infringement and self-plagiarism.
Data Sharing Policy
Data are important products of the scientific enterprise, and we believe that they should be preserved and usable for decades in the future. The HKS Misinformation Review requires, as a condition for publication, that all data necessary to replicate published results should be archived in the Harvard Dataverse repository within IRB restrictions.
Data, code, and related files used to replicate the results in the manuscript can be uploaded in any format to the Harvard Dataverse repository. However, we recommend that tabular datasets be uploaded either as an R data frame, an SPSS file, or a CSV file. The Harvard Dataverse recognizes these formats as tabular data, automatically generates summary statistics, and provides variable information, which allows users to better understand the data. Interactive demonstrations can also be uploaded to the Harvard Dataverse.
If code has been used in the study, then that code should be deposited with the data. It is highly recommended that, whenever possible, the code be open source. In those cases where sensitive data cannot be made available in the repository, exceptions may be granted at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.
By default, data deposited in the Harvard Dataverse will be given a Creative Commons 0 waiver, thereby allowing it to be reused for any purpose, including commercial, with the expectation that the data will be cited when reused. If data has already been deposited in a repository other than the Harvard Dataverse (e.g., OSF), the author is required to deposit the data into the Harvard Dataverse and add a link to the original dataset. Once a dataset is deposited in the Harvard Dataverse, the data citation(s) must be listed in the “Data Availability” section at the end of the main text.
Archiving and Preservation Policy
To guarantee long-term digital preservation, content published in the HKS Misinformation Review is deposited in DASH, Harvard University’s central open-access repository.
Policy for Corrections, Revisions, or Retractions of Published Articles
Any person may request the correction, revision, or retraction of a published article by emailing the Editorial Desk at misinforeview@hks.harvard.edu. Valid grounds for a correction, revision, or retraction exist when, in the opinion of the Editorial Committee, a paper contains one or more substantive errors of fact that significantly impact the conclusions of the paper (not simply a disagreement on matters of opinion). Any corrective action is at the discretion of the Editorial Committee and will be taken only upon written documentation of evidence of such a substantive error.
Appeals and Complaints
Any person may contact the HKS Misinformation Review with a detailed written description of the concern and information supporting the concern by emailing the Editorial Desk at misinforeview@hks.harvard.edu.
Editorial decisions are usually not reverted. However, authors who think that their manuscript was rejected due to a misunderstanding or mistake may seek an explanation for the decision. Appeals must give sound reasoning and compelling evidence against the criticism raised in the rejection letter. A difference of opinion as to the interest, novelty, or suitability of the manuscript for the HKS Misinformation Review will not be considered a valid reason for an appeal. The Editorial Committee will consider the appeal, and the decision made thereafter will be deemed final. Acceptance of the manuscript is not guaranteed even if the journal agrees to reconsider it as a new submission. The reconsideration process may involve previous or new reviewers and editors as well as substantive revisions. Authors who wish to make a complaint should email the Editorial Desk at misinforeview@hks.harvard.edu.
Allegations of Misconduct
In case of allegation(s) of misconduct such as plagiarism and falsification or fabrication of data, the aggrieved party may launch a formal complaint by emailing the Editorial Desk at misinforeview@hks.harvard.edu.
Our Editorial Desk will acknowledge receipt of the complaint, and the Editor-in-Chief will initiate an investigation in line with relevant COPE guidelines, where applicable.
Table of Contents