The purpose of papers in MountainAgenda is to present “target knowledge,” ie knowledge about what are the “right” things that need to be achieved when targeting sustainable development; stakeholders negotiate and define this on the basis of systems knowledge. Articles should therefore offer well-referenced overviews of the state of the art in mountain research, mountain development, or mountain policy and conclude with agendas for future research, development, or policy in the area reviewed. Moreover, these agendas should be guided explicitly by the values of sustainable development.
MountainAgenda articles are usually written by a renowned expert in the field or by several experts in a number of different disciplines or sectors who have conducted an in-depth reflection on important issues debated at major conferences and workshops, in electronic forums, in research groups, etc. Depending on the aim of the agenda presented, papers will address a scientific, development, or policy community, or a mixed audience.
MountainAgenda articles are reviewed by the Editors or a member of the International Editorial Board, as well as an additional expert designated by them. The review process is open: in shaping target knowledge, values are explicitly at stake, hence authors and reviewers should have the possibility to engage in a discussion about these values.
Review questions for MountainAgenda papers
- Is the topic relevant to sustainable development in mountains?
- Is the state of the art on the topic up to date, comprehensive, and relevant to the issues discussed?
- Are the issues identified in the review of immediate interest and urgent enough to justify the formulation of an agenda?
- Are the arguments leading to the agenda well substantiated and convincing?
- Is the work sound from the point of view of concept and method?
3. Structure and format
- Is the paper concise and well structured?
- Is it written in a style accessible to a broader audience?
- Are the title, abstract, and keywords appropriate?
- Are the figures, tables, maps, etc relevant and accurate?
4. Additional comments
Any additional comments are very welcome.