Review Guideline

Initial Review

1. Read the abstract to ensure you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to say no to reviewing an article if there is a good reason.

2. Read the information provided by the journal for reviewers so you will know: a) The type of manuscript (e.g., a review article, technical note, original research) and the journal’s expectations/parameters for that type of manuscript; b) Other journal requirements that the manuscript must meet (e.g., length, citation style).

3. Know the journal’s scope and mission to ensure that the paper's topic fits in the scope.

4. Read through the entire manuscript initially to see if the paper is worth publishing--only make a few notes about major problems if such exist: a) Is the question of interest sound and significant?; b) Was the design and/or method used adequately or fatally flawed? (for original research papers); c) Were the results substantial enough to consider publishable (or were only two or so variables presented, or did the results so severely flaw the paper as to render it unpublishable)?

5. What is your initial impression? If the paper is: a) Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, interesting, and new; the sound methodology used; results were well presented; discussion well formulated with Interpretations based on sound scientific reasoning, etc., with only minor comments/questions, move directly to writing up review; b) Fatally flawed so you will have to reject it: move directly to writing up review; c) A mixture somewhere in the range of “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you’re unsure if it should be rejected yet or not: It may be a worthy paper, but there are major concerns that would need to be addressed.

 

Review Questions

Writing: Is the manuscript easy to follow, and does it have a logical progression and evident organization? Is the manuscript concise and understandable? Are there any parts that should be reduced, eliminated/expanded/added?

Theory, Method, Analysis, and Conclusion: Are the theory and method used relevant to the topic of study? Is the analysis explained adequately? What is your response to the theory, method, and analysis used in this article? Does the conclusion conclude the results of the analysis?

Novelty: Does this article contain an aspect of novelty and originality? If so, describe what the novelty element is. If not, describe the potential novelty in this article so the author can make corrections. Please provide constructive suggestions to the author.

References: Are the references used in this article supportive, sufficient, and relevant to the topic of study?

 Full Review Process of Manuscript