The role of reviewers in the peer review system involves the evaluation of the quality, validity, and relevance of scholarly research. The peer-review process aims to provide authors with constructive feedback from relevant experts that they can use to make improvements to their work, thus ensuring that it is of the highest standard possible.
The Peer-Review Process Includes:
* Invitation Letter to Review
* Accept Invitation Letter
* Review Manuscript Report
* Submit Review
Only agree to review manuscripts for which you have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which you can assess in a timely manner. Respect the confidentiality of peer review and do not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review during or after the peer-review process, beyond those released by the journal.
Double-check the manuscript title page and the Acknowledgments section to determine whether there is any conflict of interest for you (with the authors, their institution, or their funding sources) and whether you can judge the article impartially.
Abstract – Has this been provided (if required)? Does it adequately summarize the key findings/approach of the paper?
Length – Reviewers are asked to consider whether the content of a paper is of sufficient interest to justify its length. Each paper should be of the shortest length required to contain all useful and relevant information, and no longer.
Originality – Is the work relevant and novel? Does it contain significant additional material to that already published?
Presentation – Is the writing style clear and appropriate to the readership? Are any tables or graphics clear to read and labeled appropriately?
References – Does the paper contain the appropriate referencing to provide adequate context for the present work?
Once you’ve read the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor regarding publication. The specific decision types used by a journal may vary but the key decisions are:
Accept – if the paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
Minor revision – if the paper will be ready for publication after light revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author makes.
Major revision – if the paper would benefit from substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.
Reject – if the paper is not suitable for publication with this journal or if the revisions that would need to be undertaken are too fundamental for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.
