Reviewer Guidelines

Before you review

You will receive a notification via OJS and email inviting you to review an article or book review submission, with the option to accept or decline the invitation. Before making your decision, please consider the following points.

Time

Journal editors are looking for reviews that are thorough and specific. If you are unsure whether you have the capacity to deliver that level of quality, you can always recommend a colleague who has more free time. If you might like to review for the journal when you are less busy, don’t forget to let the editor know.

Best match

The editor may not be familiar with the finer details of your work, so you are best placed to judge whether you have the expertise required. To help the editor match you with the right paper, please keep your ScholarOne accounts up to date with relevant keywords and institutional details.

Deadlines

If an editor asks you to carry out a review, it’s a good idea to respond confirming you’ve received their request, even if you are unsure yet whether you will accept. The period of time allocated for the review will vary per journal and the editor will inform you of the time-frame when they invite you. 

Conflicts of interest

Fully disclose any potential conflict of interest; it won’t necessarily eliminate you but will help the editorial team make an informed decision, for example:

  • Working in the same department/institute as an author
  • Having co-written with an author in the past
  • Professional or financial connections to the research

Respond to your review request

You can accept or decline your review request from your invite email. For journals and case studies, the manuscript or case will be sent to your reviewer centre on our editorial system, which you can access directly from your email.

Review the manuscript

As clearly stated in the author guidelines, reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts based on the following key points:

  • Does the introduction provide a clear research background, articulate the research gap to justify the study’s significance, and clearly state the research focus and objectives?
  • Is the methodology section comprehensive in explaining the research type, rationale for the chosen design, data collection techniques, data analysis methods, and theoretical framework (if applicable)?
  • Are the findings presented clearly, discussed in relation to relevant theories and literature, and do they offer meaningful reflections or recommendations for future research?
  • Does the conclusion effectively summarize the findings, emphasize key discussion points, and highlight the study’s contribution to the field while acknowledging its limitations?

In addition to the points mentioned above, reviewers have the authority to assess and critique the overall content and substance of the manuscript. They are also expected to provide constructive, substantive feedback aimed at helping the author improve the academic quality and clarity of the manuscript.