Guidelines for Referees
Outline
Top of pageReviewer’s name:
Article title:
Wishes of the reviewer:
DO or DO NOT share the contents of this sheet with the author.
SUMMARY EVALUATION |
Excellent |
Good |
Fair |
Poor |
N/A |
Current significance and intellectual merit |
|||||
Accuracy of subject matter, data etc. |
|||||
Review of the literature |
|||||
Use of theoretical or analytic framework |
|||||
Effectiveness of examples and/or figures |
|||||
Clarity of written expression (organization, exposition, style, syntax, punctuation, spelling) |
REVIEW OF SPECIFIC AREAS |
Excellent |
Good |
Fair |
Poor |
N/A |
Theory (insightfulness, consistency, appropriateness) |
|||||
Methodology (design, sample selection, instrumentation) |
|||||
Data analysis and interpretation |
|||||
Interpretation of findings and discussion |
|||||
Suggestive of further research |
|||||
Innovative concept |
|||||
Thought provoking |
|||||
Originality |
Recommendation:
Accept as it is
Accept with minor revisions as noted below
Accept subject to substantial revision as noted below
Revise and resubmit. Major revision required as noted below
Reject for present, but encourage submission elsewhere
Reject
Comments:
We are interested in 1-2 pages of comments on
- Originality of conception and significance of questions asked;
- Quality of methodology and sources;
- Vigor and cogency of argument;
- Felicity of style and organization;
- Suggestions for improvements.