Editorial independence

We are committed to editorial independence, and strive in all cases to prevent this principle from being compromised through competing interests, fear, or any other corporate, business, financial or political influence. We believe editorial decisions on individual manuscripts should be based on scholarly merit and on potential importance to the relevant research community.

Academic freedom

We are committed to academic freedom. This is a fundamental principle for us as a university press. As a department of the University of Cambridge we are aligned to its position on freedom of speech .

Our core purpose is to support academic discourse through the quality, breadth and diversity of our publishing. Everything we publish is validated through a rigorous peer review process including oversight by the Academic Publishing Committee .

A central part of our mission is a commitment to pluralism in academic inquiry, including where this means engaging with viewpoints which are contested or controversial. We support respectful scholarly analysis and discourse, and we do not publish work that directly or intentionally incites violence, racism or other forms of discrimination and hatred.

Editorial process

Our academic publishing programme is overseen by the Syndicate Academic Publishing Committee (SAPC) , consisting of academics from the University of Cambridge who independently approve all contracts for new books.

Book proposals

Proposals submitted for our book publishing programme are initially reviewed by commissioning editors, who may also consult relevant external book series editors or subject specialists. If the proposal is suitable for consideration by Cambridge University Press, the draft manuscript (if available) or the proposal, along with any available sample content, will usually be sent to a minimum of two external and independent peer reviewers. The peer review reports are used to inform the commissioning editor’s decision as to whether to recommend publication to the SAPC.In the case of books in series, the commissioning editor shares the peer review reports with the series editor(s), who make a formal recommendation on whether to accept the project into their series. The commissioning editor includes this in their final recommendation to the SAPC on whether to offer the author(s) a publishing contract. Our series editors are free to solicit additional reviews and guidance post-contact to inform the development of the manuscript.

Elements series

Proposals to inaugurate a new Elements series are initially reviewed by commissioning editors. If the proposal is suitable for consideration, it will be sent to a minimum of six external and independent peer reviewers. The proposal, peer review reports and series editor responses are then shared with the SAPC to approve establishment of the series and to empower the series editors to recommend contracts for Elements to be subsequently published within the series.

Element proposals

Elements can only be published within an existing series. Contracts are offered on the basis of the series editor(s)’ approval of a short outline proposal. Publication is conditional on the full manuscript being read by a minimum of two peer reviewers appointed by the series editors. On the basis of the peer review reports, the series editors may advise that the Element be rejected, accepted or accepted with major or minor revisions.

We consider appeals on editorial decisions for books and Elements, but only when new information relevant to the editorial decision has been made available, or if there is a reason to believe we did not follow our Code of Ethics  or Research Publishing Ethics Guidelines. If you have concerns and wish to appeal or file a complaint, please contact publishingethics@cambridge.org 

Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI)

We do not discriminate against authors, editors or peer reviewers based on personal characteristics or identity. We are committed to promoting equality, embedding diversity, and removing barriers to inclusion at every stage of our publishing process. We actively seek and encourage submissions from scholars of diverse backgrounds, including race and ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, and disability. Editorial decisions on individual manuscripts should be based on scholarly merit, and should not be affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, political beliefs, religion, or identity of the authors.

We recognise the right for people to be treated with respect and dignity and we do not tolerate any form of harassment, abusive behaviour or correspondence towards our staff and others involved in the publishing process on our behalf. If anyone involved in this process engages in such behaviour we have the right to take action to protect others from this abuse. This may include, for example, withdrawal of a manuscript from consideration, or challenging clearly abusive peer review comments.

Peer review

Peer review is critical to maintaining the standards of our publications. We:

• provide appropriate systems, training and support to facilitate rigorous, fair and effective peer review for all our publications;
• encourage our editors and peer reviewers to familiarise themselves with and act in accordance with relevant best practice guidelines on peer review. Commissioning editors and peer reviewers should refer to the Association of American University Press’ Best Practices for Peer Review  and Cambridge's guide to peer reviewing book proposals;
• expect those who oversee the peer review process to be able to recognise warning signs of fraudulent or manipulated peer review , and to raise any concerns by emailing publishingethics@cambridge.org. People who oversee the peer review process may be internal to Cambridge University Press or contracted by us directly or indirectly;
• support our editors and peer reviewers in investigating and acting on any suspected cases of manipulated or fraudulent peer review;
• protect the confidentiality of participants in the peer review process where anonymity forms part of that publication’s peer review process. We also expect our publishing partners, authors and peer reviewers to uphold any relevant confidentiality arrangements and to provide necessary information to support this.

Confidentiality

We expect reviewers to uphold the confidentiality of the review process. Unless otherwise specified by or agreed with the series or commissioning editor, this means the reviewer must not share the content for review with any other person, public platform, or AI tool. Any breach of confidentiality will be considered peer review misconduct, and may be reported to the reviewer’s institution.

Co-reviewing

We do not formally offer co-reviewing for our books and elements programmes. Please consult the relevant commissioning editor if you wish to co-review.

Editing of peer reviews

Unless entered into a written agreement otherwise, reviews are the intellectual property of reviewers. We encourage all those involved in the editorial process to familiarise themselves with the COPE Guidelines on Editing of Peer Reviews . Where breaches of the following policy are suspected, authors/reviewers should raise their concerns through the appeals/complaints process for that publication, or to publishingethics@cambridge.org .

Manuscript reviews or excerpts therefrom may be shared with authors; however, we honour any requests from reviewers that their review not be shared. We maintain reviewer anonymity unless a reviewer specifically requests otherwise. Any reviews or excerpts shared with authors may be lightly edited, especially to ensure anonymity. Reviewers may request to see their review report as sent to the author.

Transparency

We strive to follow COPE’s Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing  and encourage our publishing partners to uphold these same principles.

Integrity of record

We maintain a record of the existence of everything we publish with information (metadata) describing each publication. If our content is deemed not to comply with the laws of a sovereign nation, we make every effort to ensure the metadata remain accessible within that jurisdiction.

Where we are obliged to alter the publication record in any way, such as in the case of research misconduct leading to retraction of a publication, we preserve the academic record as far as possible. See the Corrections, Retractions and Removals section of these guidelines for information about how we do this.

We apply these same principles to our marketing, and do not modify or manipulate the representation of the academic record in our marketing activities.

When any product (chapter, article, book, element or journal) is purchased or subscribed to, we supply it only in its totality to the customer, who is not entitled to alter its content in any way that is inconsistent with the licensing terms under which it was published. Any sale of disaggregated products is subject to the contracts with the copyright holders of the original products.