<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head><body><h1>REVIEWER GUIDELINES</h1>
<h2>A brief guide to reviewing</h2>
<a href="#purpose">Purpose of Peer Review</a><br>
<a href="#asked">On Being Asked To Review</a><br>
<a href="#conducting">Conducting the Review</a><br>
<a href="#communicating">Communicating Your Report to the Editor</a><br>
<h3><a name="purpose">Purpose of Peer Review</a></h3>
Peer review is a critical element of scholarly publication, and one of
the major cornerstones of the scientific process. Peer Review serves two
key functions:
<ul>
<li>Acts as a filter: Ensures research is properly verified before being published
</li><li>Improves the quality of the research: rigorous review by other experts helps to hone key points and correct inadvertent errors
</li></ul>
<h3><a name="asked">On Being Asked To Review</a></h3>
<h4><i>Does the article you are being asked to review truly match your expertise?</i></h4>
The Editor who has approached you may not know your work intimately, and
may only be aware of your work in a broader context. Only accept an
invitation if you are competent to review the article.
<p>
</p><h4><i>Do you have time to review the paper?</i></h4>
Reviewing an article can be quite time consuming. The time taken to
review can vary from field to field, but an article will take, on
average, 3 hours to review properly. Will you have sufficient time
before the deadline stipulated in the invitation to conduct a thorough
review? If you can not conduct the review let the editor know
immediately, and if possible advise the editor of alternative reviewers.
<p>
</p><h4><i>Are there any potential conflicts of interest?</i></h4>
A conflict of interest will not necessarily eliminate you from reviewing
an article, but full disclosure to the editor will allow them to make
an informed decision. For example, if you work in the same department or
institute as one of the authors, worked on a paper previously with an
author or have a professional or financial connection to the article.
These should all be listed when responding to the editor's invitation
for review.
<h3><a name="conducting">Conducting the Review</a></h3>
Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially, the article you have
been asked to review should not be disclosed to a third party. If you
wish to elicit opinion from colleagues or students regarding the article
you should let the editor know beforehand. Most editors welcome
additional comments, but whoever else is involved will likewise need to
keep the review process confidential. You should not attempt to contact
the author.
<p>
Be aware when you submit your review that any recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision made by the editor.
</p><p>
Set aside two or three hours to conduct the review. It is better to
complete the evaluation in one go rather than snatching time here and
there.
</p><p>
Depending upon the journal, you will be asked to evaluate the article on
a number of criteria. Some journals provide detailed guidance others do
not, but normally you would be expected to evaluate the article
according to the following:
</p><h4><i>Originality</i></h4>
Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant
publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article
adhere to the journal's standards? Is the research question an important
one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the
journal it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what
percentile it is in? Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field? You
might wish to do a quick literature search using tools such as Scopus to
see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research been covered
previously, pass on references of those works to the editor.
<h4><i>Structure</i></h4>
Is the article clearly laid out? Are all the key elements present:
abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions? Consider each
element in turn:
<ul>
<li>Title, does it clearly describe the article
</li><li>Abstract, does it reflect the content of the article
</li><li>Introduction, does it describe what the author hoped to achieve
accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally,
the introduction is one to two paragraphs long. It should summarize
relevant research to provide context, and explain what findings of
others, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the
experiment, hypothesis (es); general experimental design or method
</li><li>Methodology. 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? Have the equipment and
materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what
type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing
measurements?
</li><li>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 been conducted? Are the statistics correct? If you are not
comfortable with statistics advise the editor when you submit your
report. Any interpretation should not be included in this section\
</li><li>Conclusion/Discussion. Are the claims in this section supported
by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how
the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the
article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion
explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge
forward?
Language. If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors,
while it may make it more difficult to understand the science, you do
not need to correct the English. You may wish to bring it to the
attention of the editor, however.
</li></ul>
Finally, on balance, when considering the whole article, do the figures
and tables inform the reader, are they an important part of the story?
Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g.
bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical.
<h4><i>Previous Research</i></h4>
If the article builds upon previous research does it reference that work
appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted?
Are the references accurate?
<h4><i>Ethical Issues</i></h4>
<ul>
<li>Plagiarism. If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of
another work, let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much
detail as possible
</li><li>Fraud. It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster,
but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it
with the editor
</li><li>Other ethical concerns. If the research is medical in nature,
has confidentiality been maintained? If there has been violation of
accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects these
should also be identified
</li></ul>
<h3><a name="communicating">Communicating Your Report to the Editor</a></h3>
Once you have completed your evaluation of the article the next step is
to write up your report. If it looks like you might miss your deadline,
let the editor know.
<p>
Some journals may request that you complete a form checking various
points, others will request an overview of your remarks. Either way, it
is helpful to provide a quick summary of the article at the top of your
report. It serves the dual purpose of reminding the editor of the
details of the report and also reassuring the author and editor that you
understood the article.
</p><p>
The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing
the points outlined in the preceding section. Commentary should be
courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks
or personal details including your name.
</p><p>
Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain
and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are better
able to understand the basis of the comments. You should indicate
whether your comments are your own opinion or reflected by data.
</p><p>
When you make a recommendation regarding an article, it is worth
considering the categories an editor will likely use for the classifying
the article.
</p><ol type="a">
<li>Rejected due to poor quality, or out of scope
</li><li>Accept without revision
</li><li>Accept but needs revision (either major or minor)
</li></ol>
In the latter case, clearly identify what revision is required, and
indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the
revised article.
</body></html>