The purpose of papers in MountainDevelopment is to offer knowledge about how to effectively solve problems or tap opportunities in mountain regions in order to move towards a more sustainable future. Such knowledge is also referred to as “transformation knowledge.” MountainDevelopment articles present well-structured and systematically validated knowledge gained from development interventions, local practices, and policy efforts, or insights from transdisciplinary and practice-oriented research. Authors are invited to not only discuss successes but also reflect on lessons learned from challenging experiences. Conclusions should contain “short and crisp” key messages for practitioners, policymakers, and decision-makers. MountainDevelopment articles can—but need not—address themes announced on MRD’s website.
Papers should address a multidisciplinary community of development-oriented researchers, policymakers, decision-makers, practitioners, etc. The review criteria focus on the novelty and systematic assessment of insights and their relevance for transformative change in mountains.
Manuscripts are reviewed by two or more international academic and development experts.
Review questions for MountainDevelopment papers
- Does the paper present a novel or relevant approach or intervention that aims at promoting sustainable development in mountains?
- Does the paper present evidence of the changes achieved and discuss the impacts on different stakeholder groups?
- Do the authors present useful lessons learned based on a systematic assessment of the intervention?
- Do the authors discuss the potential for outscaling and upscaling the approach and conclude with “short and crisp” key messages for practitioners, policymakers, and/or decision-makers?
- Is the paper an important contribution to the relevant national/international debate and do the references point to key and recent publications (scientific papers, policy documents, development reports, etc)?
- Are the context of the intervention and the intervention steps sufficiently and clearly described?
- Is the assessment and validation methodology sound, and is it presented clearly (eg systematic assessment of experiences, validation by communities concerned, etc)?
3. Structure and format
- Are the title and keywords appropriate?
- Does the abstract provide key information about the issues addressed, the objective of the intervention, the intervention approach, the assessment methodology, main changes achieved, as well as key lessons learned and recommendations?
- Is the paper concise, well structured, and accessible to a broader audience of development specialists, policymakers, and decision-makers?
- Are the figures, tables, maps, etc relevant, accurate, and of high quality?
4. Additional comments
Any additional comments are very welcome.
You may also add comments directly in the manuscript and upload the annotated PDF. The authors will receive an anonymized version.