Reviewer Guidelines
Becoming a peer reviewer for journals
Appendix
2025 Reviewer Scoresheet Questions
I am not connected with this paper, nor with the work it represents in any way, and I have not recently worked closely with any of the authors.
Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?
Yes No
Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?
Yes No
Methodology: Is the paper’s argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?
Yes No
Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?
Yes No
Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?
Yes No
Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal’s readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.
Yes No
Abstract: Does the abstract relate to the article? Does it provide an adequate summary of the content? Is the language easy to understand and clear for the reader?
Yes No
Recommendations:
- Accept
- Minor Revisions
- Major Revisions
- Reject
Comments
Confidential comments to the Editor:
Comments to the author (required) We can add extra text for the reviewers, such as please provide constructive feedback to support your answers