Review Guideline

Role and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

The peer reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the article submitted. Peer reviewers discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the strength and quality of the paper, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.

Presentation
Does the paper relate to a cohesive argument? Are the ideas clearly presented?

Writing
Does the title characterize the manuscript? Is the writing concise and easy to follow?

Length
What portions of the paper should be expanded? Removed? Condensed? Summarized? Combined?

Review Process

When reviewing the article, please consider the following:

Abstract

  • Is it a summary?
  • Does it include key findings?
  • Is it an appropriate length?

Introduction

  • Is it effective, clear, and well organized?
  • Does it introduce and put into perspective what follows?
  • Suggest changes in organization and point authors to appropriate citations.
  • Be specific - do not write “the authors have done a poor job.”

Methodology

  • Can a colleague reproduce the experiments and get the same outcomes?
  • Did the authors include proper references to previously published methodology?
  • Is the description of the new methodology accurate?
  • Could or should the authors have included supplementary material?

Results and Discussion

  • Suggest improvements in the way data is shown
  • Comment on general logic and justification of interpretations and conclusions
  • Comment on the number of figures, tables, and schemes Write concisely and precisely which changes you recommend List separately suggested changes in style, grammar, and other small changes
  • Suggest additional experiments or analyses
  • Make clear the need for changes/updates
  • Ask yourself whether the manuscript should be published at all

Conclusion

  • Comment on importance, validity, and generality of conclusions
  • Request toning down of unjustified claims and generalizations
  • Request removal of redundancies and summaries
  • The abstract, not the conclusion, summarizes the study

References, Tables, and Figures

  • Check accuracy, number, and citation appropriateness
  • Comment on any footnotes Comment on figures, their quality, and readability
  • Assess completeness of legends, headers, and axis labels
  • Check presentation consistency Comment on the need for color in figures

When submitting your recommendation, you can choose from the following options:

  • Outstanding
  • Sound
  • Sound with minor or moderate revisions
  • Unsound or fundamentally flawed