•  
  •  
 

J-PEER REVIEWER GUIDELINES

SUMMARY

  • Briefly summarize the topic of the paper and its findings
    • Identify the research questions being asked
    • If possible, try to put the paper into the context of existing literature
  • Positive feedback
    • Identify the strengths of the work
      • Well structured? Readable? Relevant? Persuasive? Original?
  • State any major flaws or concerns, to be further addressed in the rest of the review

MAJOR CONCERNS

  • Identify major issues throughout the manuscript (a list of questions to consider is provided below). For each issue you identify, we ask that you detail your concerns and provide suggestions for improvement/correction. Point out specific places in the text where the issue occurs, and refer to the page and/or line number.
    • Clarity
      • Is there a clear connection between the discussion/conclusion and the research questions being asked?
      • Is the analysis clear and well developed, and does it make significant contributions to the existing knowledge of the topic?
    • Accuracy
      • If applicable, is the data-collection procedure clearly explained? Do you have any concerns about the coding, collection, or presentation of the data?
      • Do the figures and tables allow you to accurately assess the data?
      • If self-reported survey data is used, is there a clear description of how the survey was developed? If there is no information about the validity/reliability of the survey, are there other sources (e.g., interviews, focus groups) to support the findings?
      • Are claims clearly supported by the data? Are there claims that don’t have any supporting evidence?
    • Readability
      • Is the article organized well?
      • Are the sections cohesive, or do certain sections feel random and out of place? Does the author effectively use transitions?
      • Are there any sections that are missing? (e.g ,is a “Limitations” section included?)
    • Originality & Relevance
      • Does the paper expand or further research in the subject area?
      • Is the work situated in relevant literature (referencing relevant empirical studies as well as relevant theory)?
      • Do you feel that the potential impact of this paper is high or low?

MINOR CONCERNS

  • Identify minor issues throughout the manuscript
    • Typographical errors
    • Consistency of terminology
    • Sections that require more or less detail
      • Perhaps the coding process or intervention lacks specificity
    • Are there places where the meaning is ambiguous?
    • Use of citations
      • Does the author cite relevant sources? Are they cited correctly? Is there an excessive or limited use of citations?

CONCLUSION

  • Conclude with an overview of your thoughts.
    • Briefly state what worked well
    • Identify themes in the issues you addressed (i.e., consistency, clarity, relevance)