Review Guidelines
Review Process of Manuscript: Initial Review
- Read the abstract to ensure that you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to say no to reviewing a report if there is a good reason.
- 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).
- Know the journal’s scope and mission to make sure that the paper's topic fits in the scope.
- 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 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 resulted so flawed as to render the paper unpublishable)?
- What is your initial impression? If the paper is: a) Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, engaging, 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 significant concerns that would need to be addressed.
Complete Review Process of Manuscript
- Writing: Is the manuscript easy to follow and has a logical progression and evident organization?
- Is the manuscript concise and understandable? Any parts that should be reduced,
- Eliminated/expanded/added?
- Note if there are significant problems with mechanics: grammar, punctuation, spelling. (If there are just a few places that aren’t worded well or correctly, make a note to tell the author the specific areas. If there are consistent problems throughout, only select an example or two if need be, don’t try and edit the whole thing).
- Abbreviations: Used judiciously and composed so that the reader won’t have trouble remembering what an abbreviation represents.
- Follows style, format, and other rules of the journal.
- Citations are provided when providing evidence-based information from outside sources.
