|
Peer review is the system for evaluating the quality, validity, and relevance of scholarly research. The process aims to provide authors with constructive feedback from relevant experts which they can use to make improvements to their work, thus ensuring it is of the highest standard possible. Authors expect reviews to contain an honest and constructive appraisal, which is completed in a timely manner and provides feedback that is both clear and concise.
What is peer review?
Peer review, also known as refereeing, is a collaborative process that allows manuscripts submitted to a journal to be evaluated and commented upon by independent experts within the same field of research. The evaluation and critique generated from peer review provides authors with feedback to improve their work and, critically, allows the editor to assess the paper's suitability for publication in the journal. The peer-review process does receive much criticism and is not without its limitations; however, it remains a widely recognized standard in terms of journal quality.
Before agreeing to review for a journal, you should take note of the following:
1. Investigate the journal's content
Visit the journal homepage www.ijarce.org to get a sense of the journal's published content and house style.
This will help you in deciding whether the paper being reviewed is suitable or not.
Refer to the Instructions for Authors to see if the paper meets the submission criteria of the journal (e.g. length, scope, and presentation).
Complete the review questions or report form to indicate the relative strengths or weaknesses of the paper.
A referee may disagree with the author's opinions, but should allow them to stand, provided they are consistent with the available evidence.
Remember that authors will welcome positive feedback as well as constructive criticism from you.
Writing your report:
2. Make an assessment
Complete the review questions or report form to indicate the relative strengths or weaknesses of the paper.
A referee may disagree with the author's opinions, but should allow them to stand, provided they are consistent with the available evidence.
Remember that authors will welcome positive feedback as well as constructive criticism from you.
The main factors you should provide advice on as a reviewer are the originality, presentation, relevance, and significance of the manuscript's subject matter to the readership of the journal.
Abstract - Has this been provided (if required)? Does it adequately summarize the key findings/approach of the paper?
Length - Reviewers are asked to consider whether the content of a paper is of sufficient interest to justify its length. Each paper should be of the shortest length required to contain all useful and relevant information, and no longer.
Originality - Is the work relevant and novel? Does it contain significant additional material to that already published?
Presentation - Is the writing style clear and appropriate to the readership? Are any tables or graphics clear to read and labeled appropriately?
References - Does the paper contain the appropriate referencing to provide adequate context for the present work?
3. Make a recommendation
Once you've read the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor regarding publication. The specific decision types used by a journal may vary but the key decisions are:
Accept - if the paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
Minor revision - if the paper will be ready for publication after light revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author makes.
Major revision - if the paper would benefit from substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.
Reject - if the paper is not suitable for publication with this journal or if the revisions that would need to be undertaken are too fundamental for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.
4. Provide detailed comments
These should be suitable for transmission to the authors: use the comment to the author as an opportunity to seek clarification on any unclear points and for further elaboration.
If you have time, make suggestions as to how the author can improve clarity, succinctness, and the overall quality of presentation.
Confirm whether you feel the subject of the paper is sufficiently interesting to justify its length; if you recommend shortening, it is useful to the author(s) if you can indicate specific areas where you think that shortening is required.
It is not the job of the reviewer to edit the paper for English, but it is helpful if you correct the English where the technical meaning is unclear.
| 
