For Reviewers

The following guidelines, with a few minor adaptations by Mark Fischman, are taken from Day and Gastel (2006) “How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper” (6th ed., pp. 251–253):

Reviewer main task as a peer reviewer is to evaluate the paper’s content. Is the research of high quality? If not, what are the problems? Did the author provide appropriate content? Should any content be deleted?

Reviewer should be focusing the following major issues:
– Importance of the research question
– Originality of the work
– Validity of the methods
– Soundness of the conclusions
– Clarity of the writing

General comments for authors should typically indicate what you perceive as the main strengths and main limitations of the paper. Avoid sarcasm, and phrase comments

Reviewers should focus on:
(a) comment in general on the clarity, conciseness, and correctness of the writing,
(b) note ambiguous passages,
(c) suggest any reorganization that could improve the paper,
(d) remark on the design and appropriateness of figures and tables.

Provide a section-by-section list of comments on the paper (specify the items commented on by page, paragraph, and line number). Although these comments should be mainly suggestions, you may include an occasional compliment.

You do not have to submit the checklist below as part of your review, but please consider the questions in your comments to the Associate Editor and the Editor-in-Chief.