Reviewing the Manuscript
When you are invited to review a manuscript, you will be asked a series of detailed questions designed to help you assess its quality, originality, and overall contribution to the field. The specific questions may vary depending on the publication, but the following areas should always be considered carefully.
Ethical Considerations
While reviewers are not primarily responsible for identifying ethical breaches, your expertise often places you in the best position to recognise potential issues such as plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or defamatory content. If you suspect any form of ethical misconduct—whether intentional or unintentional notify the editor or publisher immediately so that the matter can be investigated.
All submissions and review reports are confidential. Manuscripts must not be shared with others or uploaded to any external platform, including artificial intelligence tools or large language models. Doing so could breach author confidentiality, data protection laws, or intellectual property rights. AI tools should not be used to draft, evaluate, or edit peer reviews, as these systems can produce biased or inaccurate assessments. Reviewers are personally responsible for the accuracy and fairness of their evaluations. Any breach of confidentiality or misuse of AI in the review process may be treated as professional misconduct.
Originality and Contribution
Consider whether the paper presents a genuinely new idea, insight, or finding. Does it contribute meaningfully to the existing body of knowledge? Is the research question original and relevant? How does the work compare with the most influential or frequently cited research in the field? If similar studies already exist, provide references or examples in your feedback to guide the author and editor.
Structure, Layout, and Format
Authors are expected to follow the journal’s submission and formatting requirements. If these have been overlooked and the editor has not mentioned it in their invitation to review, include a note about it in your report. Occasionally, editors may defer formatting corrections until after a decision has been made on the manuscript’s content.
Title
Assess whether the title clearly represents the article’s focus and includes relevant keywords. A strong title should be informative, accurate, and help the article be easily discoverable through academic searches.
Abstract
Check that all required sections of the abstract are complete and that the abstract reflects the main content of the article accurately. It should give a concise overview of the research objectives, methods, key findings, and conclusions.
Introduction
Evaluate whether the introduction clearly explains the purpose of the study and defines the research question. Does it provide sufficient background and context, showing how the research builds on or challenges existing work? Note any significant gaps or missing references that weaken the argument.
Methodology
Determine whether the author has described the research design and data collection methods clearly and accurately. Are the chosen methods appropriate for the research question? Is there enough detail for the study to be replicated? Check whether sampling, materials, and analytical techniques are adequately explained and justified.
Statistical Analysis
Pay close attention to statistical details, as mistakes are common. Assess whether the analysis is appropriate, correctly applied, and clearly reported.
Results
Review how the results are presented. Are they clearly described, logically organised, and consistent with the data? Does the author avoid overinterpreting findings or making unsupported claims?
Discussion and Conclusions
Evaluate whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Do they integrate with the wider literature and highlight how the findings advance understanding in the field? Consider whether the discussion explains how the work aligns with or challenges previous research, and whether the implications are appropriately drawn.
Figures, Tables, and Illustrations
Examine the clarity, accuracy, and consistency of any figures or tables. Do they enhance understanding or repeat information already stated in the text? Offer suggestions for improvement if they are unclear, incorrectly formatted, or inconsistent.
Language and Readability
Assess whether the manuscript is written in clear and precise English. If the writing style makes the paper difficult to follow, note this in your report rather than attempting to edit the text yourself. The editor may then advise the author to seek professional language editing support.
Implications and Impact
Reflect on the broader value of the research. Does it have practical relevance, inform policy, contribute to teaching, or offer societal benefits? Does it strengthen theoretical understanding or open new avenues for research? Comment on whether the stated implications are consistent with the paper’s findings and conclusions.
Quality of Communication
Consider whether the manuscript is well organised and logically structured. Is the writing clear, free of unnecessary jargon, and appropriate for the journal’s readership? Evaluate the overall coherence and readability, paying attention to flow, use of terminology, and tone.
Making Your Recommendation
Once your review is complete, you will provide an overall recommendation to the editor. This feedback, together with other reviewer reports, will inform the editorial decision. Common recommendations include:
- Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication with minimal or no changes.
- Minor Revisions: The paper is strong overall but requires small adjustments, such as formatting corrections, clarification of minor points, or modest improvements in argumentation or referencing.
- Major Revisions: The paper has potential but requires substantial changes—such as additional data, a clearer methodological explanation, or a more rigorous analysis. These revisions may take weeks or months to complete.
- Reject: The manuscript does not meet the required standards for publication or falls outside the journal’s scope.
When providing your recommendation, ensure your comments are constructive, specific, and supportive. The aim is to help the author strengthen their work and to assist the editor in making an informed decision.
Online ISSN 1751-1887 Print ISSN 1751-1879
