The Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer

    The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

    Before the Review

  • Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?
  • Do you have time to review the paper? Finished reviews of an article should be completed within two weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know.
  • On Review

  • Content Quality and Originality: Does the article say something new and interesting enough to warrant publication? Does it add to the body of knowledge? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to consider the article in the context of the wider published research, using tools such as Web of Science, Scopus etc. How does it compare to the most highly cited or downloaded papers in the field? If the research has been covered previously, forward any relevant references to the Editor.
  • Layout and format: Authors must comply fully with the journal’s author guidelines, which include manuscript presentation. If the author has clearly failed to present the article according to these guidelines and the Editor has not already highlighted this in the invitation to review, you should either flag this to the Editor or note this in your review. If the paper is particularly original or interesting the Editor may choose to overlook the formatting issues throughout the peer review process and ask the author to address these only shortly prior to eventual acceptance; but at other times the Editor may ask the author to restructure the paper before progressing it any further.
  • Organization and Clarity

  • Title: Does it clearly describe the manuscript/article? Does it include the most important keywords (consider how you search for research articles) and demonstrate the significance of the research? Does it make sense?
  • Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
  • Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated?
  • Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate?
  • Statistical errors: These are common and so close attention should be paid.
  • Results: This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct?
  • Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section reasonable and supported by the results? Are the findings consistent with the author’s expectations? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the author explain how the research has added to the body of knowledge?
  • Graphics (Figures, Images) and Tables: Where these are included, please check the content and if possible make suggestions for improvements. Are they an important part of the manuscript? Are they easy to interpret and understand?