-
Initial Assessment
- Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that could bias their review. If you have any connection to the work or the authors that could affect your impartiality, notify the editor immediately.
- Scope and Relevance: Assess whether the manuscript fits within the journal’s scope and addresses topics relevant to the field. If the manuscript is out of scope, inform the editor.
-
Confidentiality
- Non-Disclosure: Treat the manuscript as a confidential document. Do not share it with others or discuss its content outside the review process.
- Secure Handling: Ensure the manuscript and any related documents are stored securely and destroyed after the review is complete.
-
Structure and Organization
- Title and Abstract: Evaluate whether the title is clear and reflects the content accurately. Assess if the abstract provides a concise summary of the study, including the research problem, methods, results, and conclusions.
- Introduction: Check if the introduction clearly states the research question or hypothesis, provides relevant background information, and explains the study's significance.
- Methods: Verify that the methodology is described in sufficient detail to allow replication. Assess the appropriateness of the research design, sample size, data collection, and analysis techniques.
- Results: Ensure the results are presented clearly and logically. Check for appropriate use of tables and figures and confirm that statistical analyses are correct and properly reported.
- Discussion and Conclusion: Evaluate whether the discussion interprets the results appropriately, relates them to the existing literature, acknowledges limitations, and suggests future research directions.
- References: Check that the references are relevant, current, and formatted according to APA style. Ensure all cited sources are included in the reference list and vice versa.
-
Content Evaluation
- Originality and Contribution: Assess the novelty of the research and its contribution to the field. Determine if the study addresses an important question or gap in the literature.
- Validity and Reliability: Evaluate the validity of the research findings and the reliability of the methods used. Consider if the study’s conclusions are supported by the data.
- Clarity and Quality of Writing: Assess the clarity and coherence of the writing. Look for well-structured sentences, logical flow, and minimal grammatical errors.
-
Ethical Considerations
- Research Ethics: Ensure the study adheres to ethical standards, including obtaining necessary approvals and consent from participants. Look for statements about ethical considerations in the manuscript.
- Plagiarism: Check for any signs of plagiarism by comparing the manuscript to known sources. If plagiarism is suspected, notify the editor.
-
Constructive Feedback
- Specific Comments: Provide specific, detailed feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Avoid vague statements and offer clear examples.
- Balanced Review: Highlight both positive aspects and areas for improvement. Constructive criticism should be aimed at helping the authors enhance their work.
- Actionable Suggestions: Offer practical suggestions for revisions. This might include recommendations for additional analyses, clarifications, or reorganization of sections.
-
Recommendation
- Decision Options: Typically, reviewers are asked to make one of the following recommendations: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject.
- Justification: Provide a clear justification for your recommendation, summarizing the key points that led to your decision.
-
Timeliness
- Prompt Response: Respond to the invitation to review as soon as possible, indicating whether you can complete the review within the requested timeframe.
- Adherence to Deadlines: Complete your review within the agreed-upon timeframe. If you need an extension, communicate this promptly to the editor.
-
Professional Conduct
- Respectful Tone: Maintain a respectful and professional tone throughout your review. Constructive criticism should be delivered politely and objectively.
- Anonymity: Adhere to the journal’s policies regarding reviewer anonymity. Do not include any identifying information in your review comments if the review process is double-blind.
-
Post-Review Responsibilities
- Follow-Up: Be available to answer any follow-up questions from the editor or authors regarding your review.
- Re-Review: If a revised manuscript is submitted, be prepared to review it again to ensure that the authors have addressed your comments adequately.
