Journal Policies

Editorial Oversight

Regeneration is run by an Editorial Collective of up to three lead editors.

The Editorial Collective acts as Editor-in-Chief. The editors in the Editorial Collective shall serve staggered terms of no more than five years and no less than three years to ensure the journal’s coherence.

Guest Editor(s) are selected based on the acceptance by the Editorial Collective of a special issue proposal. Regeneration requires that proposals for special issues be submitted in accordance with our document 'How to Propose a Special Issue' (please see Regeneration's 'Special Issues' section below for further information).

It is the responsibility of the current editors train new editors, but it is the responsibility of the Editorial Board to select new editors. If an editor wishes to recommit to another term on the Editorial Collective, the entire Editorial Collective must vote affirmatively.

Editorial Board members are responsible for selecting new members of the Editorial Collective when a member of the collective completes a term. Editorial Board members may propose themselves for that position. Selection of a new member of the Editorial Collective shall be by a simple majority vote.

Editorial Board members serve five year terms and may choose to stay on the board for up to two five year terms.

Regeneration cultivates a broad and experienced Editorial Board that contains members from across different nations, academic institutions, genders and demographics. Potential board members are approached by the Editorial Collective while keeping this diversity in mind. The composition of the board should also reflect the broad expertise in the field of environmental studies, with particular attention to the field of environmental justice. The board should include members from a range of disciplines, and should reflect scholarly expertise in matters of environmental justice such as race, indigeneity, sexuality, gender, and class.

Peer Review Process

Regeneration uses a double-anonymized review policy in order to ensure that contributors receive unbiased commentary on their articles and to ensure that every article is reviewed by an expert in the contributor’s field. Therefore, the review process for research articles that are published within standard journal issues (i.e., for articles not part of a special issue, which may have a modified review process) is anonymous for the author and the reviewer, which is the standard in humanistic scholarship.

Manuscripts are reviewed by the Editorial Collective initially for suitability and are either desk-rejected or advanced. Academic articles are sent out in double-anonymous review to two reviewers. Once returned, reviews are forwarded to authors with an initial editorial decision. The four evaluative choices are Reject, Major Revisions, Minor Revisions, and Accept Without Revisions.

For cases in which evaluators advise revision, revisions are submitted to the editors for assessment before publication. The Editorial Collective shall have the final say on the disposition of the revised essay, which may, but need not be re-sent to the initial reviewers. Although the Editorial Collective has the final say on the acceptance of any article, they should defer to the expertise of the journal’s reviewers.

In the case of special issues, the journal offers a choice of peer review options, which include: 1) all special issue contributions reviewed in the regular manner of article submissions; 2) all special issue contributions reviewed by the Guest Editor(s), who act as reviewer 1, and a second reviewer chosen by the Editorial Collective; 3) all special issue contributions reviewed by the Guest Editor(s), who act as reviewer 1, and a second reviewer chosen by the Editorial Collective in consultation with the Guest Editor(s).

All work submitted to the journal will, with rare exceptions, be anonymously evaluated by two reviewers. Exceptions include introductions and other paratexts, and artistic contributions which go through editorial review alone. The Editorial Collective shall choose those reviewers, and send the articles and associated figures, video, or images to those reviewers. In rare instances, the Editorial Collective will ask the Editorial Board for permission to publish an essay without peer review. The board must vote affirmatively by simple majority.

Regeneration's peer reviewers are members of the Editorial Board. In cases where no member has expertise in the article's area of research, the board will suggest scholars to the Editorial Collective who are able to fairly evaluate the work. It is the Regeneration's policy that authors should not suggest peer reviewers when submitting their work to the journal. The Editorial Collective will also not ask authors to supply the names of peer reviewers for their work.

The Editorial Collective supplies an abstract when peer reviewers are invited to review work, and upon acceptance editors supply the author's anonymized work as well as all images, figures, videos, and a reviewer guidelines template.

The journal asks reviewers to summarize the work’s major innovations, and to prepare a detailed statement of its strengths and weaknesses as well as comments designed to strengthen the essay. We ask in particular about originality and usefulness of the research contribution for other scholars.

Regeneration does not publish peer review reports alongside articles, or the names of the peer reviewers who have undertaken review of the article. Anonymized peer review data is held securely and privately in the journal’s publishing platform for the author to access whenever they choose to.

Organization and Governance

Regeneration: Environment, Art, Culture transforms the project of the journal Resilience: A Journal of Environmental Humanities, formerly published by University of Nebraska Press and now concluded. Regeneration has been published by the Open Library of Humanities (OLH) since 2024.

Regeneration is owned and managed voluntarily and noncommercially by its editorial team.

Business Practices


Regeneration does not permit any advertising on the journal’s website and will never consider requests of any kind from other parties wishing to advertise in the journal or on its webpages.

Direct Marketing

Regeneration does not engage in any direct marketing practices.

The publisher, OLH, employs a Marketing Officer who undertakes general marketing activities for the publisher including the promotion of its journals. The Marketing Officer does not, however, engage in direct marketing for any OLH journals and this does not affect the editorial decisions of OLH journals in any way.

Other Revenue

Regeneration is funded by OLH’s Library Partnership Subsidy Model and does not generate any additional streams of revenue.

Preprint Policy

Regeneration does not publish preprints. The journal may consider articles based on work that has already been made openly available. The article must successfully pass through the journal’s double-anonymized peer review process before being published. Regeneration only publishes original research that has not been previously published in another journal.

Special Issues

We invite proposals for special issues using our guidelines for proposing such issues. The proposals will be evaluated by the Editorial Board and the Editorial Collective. If invited to go forward, special issues will be peer-reviewed, and the individuals who propose them will receive 'Guest Editor' credits for the scheduled issues. All special issues will be given a volume and issue number in the regular schedule.

Peer review for special issues may differ from the standard review process for articles submitted to Regeneration. Please see the 'Peer Review Process' section above for further information.

If you are interested in proposing a special issue for the journal, please download and follow this document.