What to consider when reviewing

There are a number of points that are important for you to consider for every article you review:

• Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?
• Plagiarism: If you have reason to believe that an article is a substantial copy of another work please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.
• Defamation/libel: If inaccurate, unsubstantiated or emotive statements are made about organizations or people in a submitted article, please let the editor know. If it is considered that the article could be potentially libellous, clarification will be sought from the author.
• Fraud: Although it can be very difficult to detect if you suspect the results in an article to be falsified please raise the matter with the editor.
• Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shared or discussed with others unless otherwise authorized by the Editor. Unpublished information or material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
• Title: Does it clearly describe the 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?
• Structured abstract: Have all the mandatory fields been completed? Does it accurately reflect the content of the article?
• Introduction: Does this describe what the author hoped to achieve and clearly articulate the research question? Has the author provided a summary of the current research literature to provide context? Is it clear how this is being challenged or built upon? Are there any important works that have been omitted?
• Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?
• Methodology: Is the paper’s argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?
• Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?
• Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affect

the quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?

• 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 and Tables: Where these are included, please check the content and if possible make suggestions for improvements. 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 presented consistently (e.g. in the same format throughout)?
• Quality of Communication/ Language: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal’s readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.

Recommendations:

• Accept
• Minor Revisions 
• Major Revisions        
• Reject

What’s the difference between "minor" and "major" revisions?

This varies from journal to journal. However, minor revisions may more often require the author to make relatively small adjustments to the paper, the type of which that would not take too much more time. These may be to bring the paper more in line with author guidelines with a slightly reduced word count, formatting changes or the labelling of tables or figures; further evidence of an understanding of the extant research literature; or to elaborate a little more on the research findings.

Major revisions might require the author to make more significant improvements, the type of which that may take weeks or even months rather than days. Authors may be asked to address flaws in the methodology; collect more data; conduct a more thorough analysis; or even adjust the research question to ensure the paper contributes something truly original to the body of work.

The exact motivations behind an editor's decision are always unique. Importantly, constructive feedback should be provided by the reviewers so that authors are clear on how to improve their papers.

Need help?

Any questions relating to the content of the paper should be addressed to the journal’s editor or the editorial office.