Guidelines for Reviewers

 Guidelines for Reviewers (adopted from the Elsevier Guidelines for Reviewers)

Please consider the following aspect before reviewing the article:

  1. Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise? If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please feel free to recommend alternate reviewer of your contact with their email address and contact number.
  2. Do you have time to review the paper? Finished reviews of an article should be completed within two weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer of your contact with their email address and contact number. If you have agreed to review a paper but will no longer be able to finish the work before the deadline, please contact the editor as soon as possible.
  3. Are there any potential conflicts of interests? While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interests, please do not hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office.

The Review Process

When reviewing the manuscript submitted to you for the peer-review, please keep the following point in mind:

  1. Content Quality and Originality,
  • Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication?
  • Does it add to the canon of knowledge?
  • Does the article adhere to the journal's standards?
  • Is the research question an important one?
  • In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in?

Organization and Clarity of the Manuscript

Title: Does it clearly describe the article?

Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?

Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated?

Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis and the general experimental design or method.

Method:

  • Does the author explain the research design?
  • Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected?
  • Is the design suitable for answering the question posed?
  • Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research?
  • Does the article identify the procedures followed?
  • Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail?
  • Was the sampling appropriate?
  • Have the equipment and materials been adequately described?
  • Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
  • Does the author use appropriate statistical method in the research?

Results: This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider the following aspects:

  • Does the data is presented appropriately in tabulated and graphical way?
  • Does the author accurately use the statistical method which is being stated in method section?
  • Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.

Conclusion/Discussion:

  • Are the claims of the author (in this section) supported by the results stated in the result section of the manuscript?
  • Does the conclusion seem reasonable?
  • Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research?
  • Does the article support or contradict previous theories?
  • Is there appropriate justification
  • Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

Tables, Figures, Images:

  • Are they appropriate?
  • Do they properly show the data?
  • Are they easy to interpret and understand?

Scope - Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal?

Peer reviewers are requested to submit their feedback on the IJOSH peer review form below:

IJOSH Peer Review Format to be filled by peer reviewer