Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

The main duty of a peer reviewer is to assess the scientific merit of the manuscript.

Don't spend time doing the following (they are the responsibility of the editor and/or associate editors):

  1. Checking to see if the references used in the body are listed in the REFERENCE section.
  2. Checking to see if the REFERENCE list is properly done.
  3. Commenting on or changing the "mechanics" (font size, symbols, etc.) of graphs.
    DO consider if a graph is needed and if the appropriate information is on the graph. See Do's below.
  4. Checking spelling, grammar, and sentence structure.
    However, if you notice sections in the manuscript that need attention, please identify them.

    Do spend time determining if:

    1. The INTRODUCTION clearly sets out the "problem" that is being attacked and has sufficient (or too much) background.
    2. The OBJECTIVES are clearly stated. This might be part of the INTRODUCTION.
    3. The LITERATURE REVIEW is appropriate. This might be part of the INTRODUCTION.
      Is there adequate reference to previous work in this area?
      Are the references the most current available?
      Is there too much detail? A paper should not include as much detail as a thesis includes.
    4. The METHODS section is clear.
      Do you get a "good picture" of what was done?
      Was it an appropriate way to tackle the problem?
    5. The RESULTS and DISCUSSION section is appropriate.
      Have the results been reported appropriately with graphs and tables? See point #3 in Don'ts.
      Are there graphs and/or tables that are redundant?
      Are the results reported and discussed in a logical sequence?
      Are there results that seem "strange"? If so, have adequate explanations been given?
      Have the results been interpreted correctly?
      If statistical methods are used, have they been used correctly and the results interpreted correctly?
      Is there adequate discussion of the results?
      Have the authors gotten "long winded"?
    6. The CONCLUSIONS are appropriate.
      Do the conclusions coincide with the objectives?
      Can these conclusions actually be drawn from the results?
      Are there additional conclusions that can be made?
    7. The ABSTRACT, being as brief as possible, states the problem, tells how it was "attacked", gives the major results, and the major conclusions. Remember, the abstract is a "stand alone" item. It must tell enough of the story, on its own, that readers can decide if they want to read the full paper.
    8. The TITLE is appropriate.
      Does it tell what the study is about?
      Could it be shorter?
    9. The paper, as a whole, has advanced the scientific knowledge in this area. Decide in which of the following four categories you place the paper:
  5. Accept
    The paper is worthy of publishing after a little editing or revision.
  6. Conditionally Accept
    The paper is of such form that it can be made worthy of publishing after considerable revision. The study (objectives and methodology) and analysis are reasonable but the presentation is poor. After revision, a re-review by the peer reviewers is not necessary as the associate editor can decide if the revisions are acceptable.
  7. Not Accept (Rewrite)
    The paper is of such form that it requires a major reworking but has the potential to be publishable. The study (objectives and methodology) is reasonable but the analysis is poor or inadequate. After rewriting, the manuscript should be peer reviewed again.
  8. Reject
    The paper is of little or no value to this scientific community and should be abandoned. The problem formulation and/or objectives are flawed or the study really is not one appropriate for the journal. The procedure taken to tackle the problem may have been inappropriate and therefore the results (data) obtained are either poor or invalid.