Peer Review Process

Overview of Peer Reviewer Responsibilities

Peer reviewers serve a critical role in the academic publishing process by evaluating manuscripts within their field of expertise. Reviewers are expected to provide comprehensive, constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work. This involves analyzing the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses, assessing its contribution to the field, and offering specific recommendations for improvement.

Pre-Review Considerations

Before accepting a review assignment, please carefully consider the following factors:

  • Expertise Match: Ensure the manuscript aligns with your area of specialization. If the topic falls outside your expertise, promptly notify the committee and suggest alternative reviewers who would be better qualified to evaluate the work.
  • Time Commitment: The standard review timeline is two weeks from acceptance. If you cannot meet this deadline, please inform the committee immediately and, if possible, recommend an alternative reviewer. Extensions may be granted in exceptional circumstances but must be requested in advance. 

Review Process

  • Title and Abstract Assessment

Evaluate whether the title accurately and clearly describes the study's content and scope. The abstract should provide a comprehensive summary that reflects the manuscript's key findings, methodology, and conclusions.

  • Introduction Analysis

The introduction should establish the research context by summarizing relevant literature, clearly articulating the research problem, and explaining the study's objectives. It should present the theoretical framework, research hypotheses, and methodology in a logical progression.

  • Literature review

The literature review should demonstrate comprehensive coverage of current and relevant studies while critically analyzing and synthesizing findings rather than merely summarizing previous work. Assess whether the authors have identified key patterns, contradictions, and gaps in existing research, and evaluate how effectively they use this foundation to justify their study's necessity and develop a coherent theoretical framework that supports their research hypotheses and methodology.

  • Content Quality and Originality

Beyond this technical check, assess whether the work presents novel findings, demonstrates sufficient depth of analysis, and makes a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge. Consider whether the manuscript meets the journal's standards and falls within its stated scope.

  • Methodology

The methodology section must provide sufficient detail to enable replication by other researchers. It should go beyond mere definitions to explain the actual procedures used, including details regarding the methodology depending on whether quantitative or qualitative methods are used.

  • Results and Analysis

The results and analysis section should present findings in a clear, logical sequence. For quantitative studies, evaluate the appropriateness of statistical methods and analyses. Determine whether the data supports the conclusions drawn and whether the presentation facilitates understanding.

  • Discussion and Conclusions

Assess whether the discussion adequately interprets the results and places them in the context of existing literature. The conclusions should clearly articulate the study's implications for the field. 

  • Writing Quality and Style

The manuscript should demonstrate critical engagement with relevant literature, particularly in systematic reviews. The writing should be focused, coherent, and accessible to the intended audience. All content must be presented in clear, grammatically correct English with an appropriate academic tone.

Ethical Considerations

Maintain strict confidentiality regarding all aspects of the review process. Contacting authors directly during the review process is prohibited.

Be vigilant for potential ethical issues:

  • Plagiarism: If you suspect substantial copying from other sources, provide detailed information to the committee. All manuscripts undergo initial plagiarism screening using Turnitin, with acceptable similarity thresholds of 30% or less. 
  • AI Usage Policy: If significant AI-generated content is suspected, please submit supporting details to the committee for review. All manuscripts are subject to initial AI content detection screening, with an acceptable threshold of 20% or less for AI-generated material. 

Review Recommendations

After completing your evaluation, provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept (with or without minor revisions): The manuscript is well-executed, addresses an important topic, and contains no significant methodological or analytical flaws. Any required changes are minor and can be addressed without substantial additional research.
  • Major Revision Required: The work addresses an important topic but requires significant improvements in research, analysis, or presentation before publication. While substantial gaps exist in methodology, analysis, or theoretical framework, the reviewer believes these issues can be successfully addressed with appropriate revision.
  • Resubmit for Review: The manuscript has potential but requires extensive additional research or major restructuring. The identified deficiencies are substantial enough to warrant another round of peer review after revision.
  • Reject: The manuscript either lacks relevance to the journal's scope or contains fundamental flaws that cannot be reasonably addressed within an acceptable timeframe. This recommendation applies when multiple significant problems exist in methodology, analysis, or theoretical foundation.

Review Submission Guidelines

Submit your completed review by the specified deadline. Structure your feedback with clearly separated sections: comments intended solely for the committee and feedback that can be shared with the authors. Your honest, detailed assessment is essential for maintaining publication quality and supporting author development.

For questions or concerns about the review process, contact the committee promptly. Your contribution to the peer review process is invaluable to the advancement of scholarly knowledge.