Review guidelines

Articles undergo thorough peer review and we endorse COPE guidelines for reviewers. In accordance with COPE recommendations on ethical editing for new Editors, Editors will assign any submissions they cannot handle (e.g. if they are the author of an article submitted to their own journal) to a member of the Editorial Board or a guest editor.

  1. Student Researcher Study Reports and Contextualised prototypes: single-anonymous peer review (also called ‘single-blind peer review’)
  2. Research Articles: double-anonymous peer review (also called ‘double-blind peer review’)

The details of the comments as well as the overall recommendations by peer reviewers will be considered by the Editor(s) when making a decision, but ultimate responsibility for acceptance or rejection lies with the Editor(s).

It is a requirement to maintain confidentiality and integrity of the peer review and editorial decision-making process at all stages, complying with data protection regulations.

Reviewers will be matched with the submissions in line with their area of expertise. At times, a reviewer may be asked to review a submission outside of their field of expertise to ensure the work is comprehensible to a general readership. Reviewers should keep the content and their comments confidential other than to those involved with the review process and should approach each review ethically and objectively.

Process of Peer Review

  1. Received by the editor and checked against aims and scope of journal, guidelines for submissions such as word count, references, copyright permissions etc.
  2. Editor identifies reviewers and sends the invitation to review the submission. Reviewers have two (2) weeks to respond if they accept/decline to review.
  3. If accepted, reviewers have three (3) weeks to review the submission.
  4. Reviewers shall provide feedback that is formative and a recommendation to ‘publish as is; publish with minor revisions; major revisions are required with an invitation to resubmit; or rejection for publication.
  5. Editor checks the reviews and forwards them to the author(s). The editor may provide additional comments or a summation of the reviews. If necessary, the author makes required amendments and resubmits the paper. The author may choose not to resubmit thus ending the review for publication process.
  6. If accepted, the paper will be published.

Expectations of Reviewers

  • Reviewers are not expected to correct grammar, spelling, or use of English but where such errors affect meaning or clarity, this will be highlighted. Make useful comments on the writing on the manuscript (organisation or structure, figures, tables, etc.).
  • Prior to publication, reviewers must not use, cite, or replicate anything from the reviewed manuscript in any other written or oral works.
  • Reviewers shall comment on the originality of the ideas presented in the submission, its contribution to scholarship in the field, and its relevance to journal readership.
  • Reviewers shall reflect on the accuracy and appropriateness of methodology, the accuracy of presentation of results, and comment on the reliability of conclusions including supporting evidence.
  • Reviewers shall identify strengths of the work and its significance to the field, identify limitations of the work, and comment how it engages with current scholarship and relevant key works.
  • Reviewers shall conclude by providing judgement on the overall standard of the work, and a decision and recommendation: ‘publish as is; publish with minor revisions; major revisions are required with an invitation to resubmit; or rejection for publication. Even when recommending rejection, the reviewer is encouraged to share suggestions for improvement.

Comments

Reviewers should be mindful that even submissions which are judged to be of poor quality or with major flaws, still represent significant hard work by the author. Authors may be early in their career with little publishing experience, and English might not be their first written language. Reviewers are asked to consider that authors may have been educated in places, with varying pedagogical styles, and/or where the process of publication differs from your experience, and/or they may face substantial barriers to publication.

All comments should be phrased in such a way that they can be read by the author(s) and should be framed constructively and positively – if you love the paper, find it interesting or think it covers important ground, you should say so! Reviewers should indicate the strengths of the work and its significance to the field.

Comments should be constructive, supportive, and formative. Make explicit and specific suggestions for improvement and be clear on what the author should do to resubmit. For example, if you feel further reading is required, state clearly which work you recommend to the author and why this will improve their submission. This is important whether you are recommending the paper for publication or not.

Comments should be written in plain English. Vague statements should be avoided. Hostile or insulting remarks should not be included in any review.

Conflict of interest

Reviewer should make the Editor aware of:

  • Any conflicts of interest with the submission.
  • Any difficulties in completing the review within the timeframe.
  • Any concerns of plagiarism or other academic misconduct.
  • Prior to publication, reviewers must not use, cite, or replicate anything from the reviewed manuscript.