Reflections on the 2024 ESJP review process: Andreas

‘For me, formulating a paper is always personal and sending it in for review always entails a sense of vulnerability. In a sense, I consider it to “expose” myself. Particularly in relation to the work I’ve been doing lately, where I find it important for our field to also engage in a form of self-criticism and investigate what we take for granted or assume when doing feminist/progressive work, it has happened that I have gotten harsh critiques in reviews, that I have not always found fair in relation to the argumentation put forward in the paper submitted, but rather protective in relation to certain positions in the field. This is certainly not to suggest that I have not also received very constructive and highly deserved critique, but the traditional double-blind process provides little room to explain oneself, little room for dialogue and lots of room for being “suspicious” about each other as author/reviewer. I therefore highly appreciated the more “developmental” or dialogical reviewing process set up through the conference/for this special issue. I found it provided space to be more personal and even vulnerable in responding to the reviews, and that the process ultimately allowed for a more direct and “honest” dialogue, because the need to protect certain positions was toned down in favor of trying to understand each other’s arguments. So, for me and for this paper, this review process had strong merits, and I really appreciated the feedback I got, which made feel that I wanted to better my paper and clarify my argumentation rather than defend myself after feeling hurt.’ (communication by email on 2025-04-28)