Author Hub |
A Guide to Peer Reviewing Journal Articles
7/12
If you will be unable to complete the review by this deadline, you
should let the editorial board know.
If you are not able to accept the invitation to review, it is best to send
your response as quickly as possible so that the journal are able to find
alternative reviewers. Where possible, it is also common practice to
suggest alternative reviewers if you are not able to review.
Some journals will issue peer review guidelines when you accept an
invitation to review. These might suggest the key considerations and
a recommended structure for your review. If there are guidelines,
it is important to read them carefully before you start the process,
and adapt your review and your considerations to suit the journal’s
requirements. If you are unsure as to whether there are any particular
requirements, the handing editor will be able to let you know.
On your first reading, you should be aiming to form an overall
impression and understanding of the article. You may wish to make
some notes on these first impressions, focusing on recent related
work in the area, responding to the article’s statement of purpose, and
thinking about the impact that you feel that the article might have on
the general body of research in your discipline.
Once you have read the article once and formed a broad impression of
it, you should undertake a second, more detailed reading of the article,
with the aim of giving a rounded and objective evaluation. You may
wish to consider the following aspects of the article:
1. The article’s contribution to the discipline
• Does the article make a contribution to the discipline?
• How significant is that contribution?
1. Read journal guidelines
2. First reading: Overview of article and contribution
3. Second reading: Detailed reading