Reviewer Guidelines
Review Process of Manuscript: Initial Review
-
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.
-
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 ensure that the paper's topic fits in the scope.
-
Ready? 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 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, 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.
