Editorial and publishing policies

Nordic Open Access Scholarly Publishing (NOASP) publishes work of high academic quality, and all of our Open Access books, both monographs and anthologies, are subject to peer review. As a member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), we are engaged with the association in developing best practise in Open Access publishing.

Open licenses

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 team will provide guidance in choosing the appropriate one.    


Book proposals are first reviewed by an appropriate editorial advisory group at Cappelen Damm Akademisk to ascertain whether they are suitable for publication. The advisory group consists of internal editors and includes at least one editor with research competence and one editor with expertise in the relevant subject area.

If deemed suitable, the manuscript is then subject to formal peer review. Where authors have suggested reviewers, editors may contact these individuals if the suggestions are reasonable and the editor is confident that no competing interests are present (e.g. the reviewer is a colleague in the same department, or has been in a student-supervisor or co-author situation with the submitting authors within the last five years, or is someone within the author’s research network). We follow a single-blind peer-review process; neither authors nor a book’s editors are informed of the identity of the peers.

In reviewing anthology articles, for example, peers are asked to take the following points into consideration with respect to the manuscript:

  1. The article presents new knowledge and is original (the author’s own and not previously published)
  2. The standard of scholarship presented (viz. findings, methodology, interpretations) is acceptable
  3. The article is well structured, and subject matter, theories, methodologies, findings and interpretations are coherently and clearly formulated and presented
  4. References are sufficiently provided and complete in both the text and in the reference list
  5. The article’s English abstract is sufficiently informative and descriptive of the content
  6. The article’s title is adequately descriptive of the content
  7. The subject of the article is aligned with that of the anthology as a whole

Authors are sent anonymised copies of referee comments.

Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts taking into account the referee comments and suggestions. In most instances where an author disagrees with recommendations and does not wish to comply with them, the editors of the book discuss and resolve the matter. In more complex cases, where the author and editors disagree about significant portions of the content, the manuscript may be resubmitted for peer review.

On receipt of the author’s revision, the editors determine whether the revised manuscript is ready for publication or should be returned to referees for a final vetting before a decision can be made.

You will find additional information under For authors.


Our journals’ Editorial and Publishing Policies can be found on their respective websites: NOASP Journals