Reviewer
Notes
The
primary purpose of the review process is to ensure that papers
accepted for publication by the journal meet the highest academic
standards of clarity, rigour and replicability. A secondary purpose
of the review process is to provide constructive feedback for
authors whose papers fall short of this mark.
The
general expectation is that all reviewer feedback will be passed
on, in an anonymised form, to the submitting author(s). Reviewers
are therefore asked to ensure that their comments are suitably
constructive, and to highlight any comments that they would prefer
remained confidential to the editor.
In
providing feedback on a paper, reviewers are asked make a clear
overall recommendation (publish; publish subject to minor revision;
publish subject to major revision; revise and resubmit; reject).
This recommendation should be followed by a justification for the
recommendation made, including at least brief reference to each
of:
-
Originality
-
Validity of methods, results and interpretations
- Relevance
to journal readership
-
Clarity and structure of narrative
-
Quality and appropriateness of any tables or figures
If
revision prior to publication or resubmission is recommended,
reviewers are asked to provide a list of points that the submitting
author(s) should be asked to address.
In
order to allow for timely publication, reviewers are asked to
provide comments on submitted items within the agreed review deadline
(normally four weeks after receipt of item).
