Reviewers Guideline
Reviewer Guidelines
Peer review is a crucial process for assessing the quality, validity, and relevance of academic research. It is designed to provide authors with constructive feedback from experts in their field, enabling them to refine their work and ensure it meets the highest standards. Authors anticipate honest, timely, and clear feedback that helps enhance their research.
Why Review?
- To assist authors in improving their papers by applying your professional expertise.
- To contribute to a rigorous peer-review process, ensuring that only the most insightful and well-researched work is published.
- To build connections with journal editorial teams and enhance your own academic and professional reputation.
- Though often anonymous, the review process facilitates a dialogue between the author, reviewer, and editor on how to strengthen the paper’s impact and advance the field.
- To identify any missing references and suggest additional literature that could offer useful comparisons or clarifications.
What to Consider Before Accepting a Review
- Confirm whether your expertise aligns with the manuscript’s topic.
- Decline the review if there is a conflict of interest, such as relationships with the authors or previous collaborators.
- If you must decline, consider recommending another qualified reviewer.
- Once you accept, you will have two weeks to complete your review. Timely responses are crucial; late reviewers may be removed from the database.
Writing Your Review: A Step-by-Step Guide
- Research the Journal’s Scope
- Check the journal’s Instructions for Authors to ensure the paper meets submission guidelines (e.g., length, scope, format).
- Use the review form to highlight the paper’s strengths and weaknesses.
- While you may disagree with the author’s views, respect them if they are supported by evidence.
- Provide both positive feedback and constructive criticism.
- Assess the Manuscript
- Evaluate the manuscript’s originality, presentation, relevance, and significance to the journal’s audience.
- Consider the following questions as you read:
- Is the work original?
- Does it advance or contribute to research in the field?
- Does it build on prior work?
- Is it within the journal’s scope?
- Should it be condensed or revised?
- Would it interest the journal’s readers?
- Does it include a comprehensive abstract and conclusion?
- Is the language clear and suitable for an academic audience?
- Are the methodology and analysis sound?
- Is the paper impactful and does it include all necessary data and references?
- Evaluate Other Aspects
- Abstract: Is it provided and does it summarize the paper effectively?
- Length: Is the paper concise and does it include all relevant information?
- Originality: Is the work novel and does it add significant new insights?
- Presentation: Is the writing clear and are the tables and graphics well-presented?
- References: Are citations appropriate and do they provide context?
- Make Your Recommendation
- After evaluating the paper, decide on one of the following recommendations:
- Accept: The paper is ready for publication as is.
- Minor Revision: The paper needs light revisions. Specify the required changes.
- Major Revision: Substantial changes are needed. Outline the necessary revisions.
- Reject: The paper is unsuitable for this journal or requires too many changes.
- Provide Detailed Comments
- Offer clear, actionable feedback for the authors.
- Suggest ways to improve clarity and overall quality.
- Indicate if the paper’s length is justified or if it should be shortened.
- Correct technical English where necessary, but avoid extensive editing.
Consider the Following in Your Feedback:
- Does the paper significantly contribute to the field?
- Is the research likely to impact practice or debate?
- Are the ideas novel and interesting?
- Will other researchers find it worth citing?
- Are the methods, analysis, and conclusions robust?
- Is the paper well-integrated with existing literature?
Be constructive and sensitive in your feedback, avoiding vague or irrelevant criticisms.
If You Cannot Review
- Notify the editorial office as soon as possible if you are unable to review due to time constraints or other reasons.
- If you can, suggest an alternative reviewer.
- Inform the office if any potential conflicts of interest arise.
For further inquiries, please contact the Journal at: journal@kissrjour.org
