Beyond providing editors with the information needed to reach a fair decision, the main purpose of the review is to provide authors with reasons for the decision and guidance on how they can strengthen their paper and research.
In addition to in-file comments, reviewers should evaluate:
- Whether the paper contributes new knowledge to the field
- Whether the manuscript provides sufficient evidence for its conclusions
- Clarity of the research question(s)
- Novelty or new perspective offered by the research
- Whether arguments are evidence-based
- Presence of any major flaws (e.g. misrepresentation of law or scientific findings)
- Clarity and accuracy of empirical data (if applicable)
- Structure, logical flow, and argumentation
- Minimal and effective use of headings
- Use of appropriate and reliable citations
- Clarity and correctness of language
Reviewers should aim to prevent their own views from influencing the evaluation of the paper.
The first reading should focus on understanding the research question, methodology, structure, results, and recommendations. This helps determine whether the paper meets the required quality standards.
It is important to read the entire paper before making a decision. Even if rejection seems likely early on, reviewers should continue reading, as key contributions may appear later and useful feedback can still be provided to authors.
After the first reading, reviewers should prepare a structured summary addressing the evaluation points listed above and highlight any important work missed by the authors.
Reviewers should consider all aspects of the paper:
- Title
- Abstract
- Structure
- Language
- Missing or unaddressed points
- Unnecessary content
- Conclusion
Language: Quality of research and clarity are priorities. If language issues exist, reviewers should highlight them with examples, but focus primarily on improving research quality rather than editing extensively.
