Blind Review Process
Formal Criteria for Starting the Review Process
The Editorial Board seeks suitable reviewers for a blind review, informs them of the requirements and sends them the anonymised article.
Transparency of Review Criteria
Reviewers assess entries based on the following five criteria and award a score from 1 (poor work) to 5 (excellent work) for each criterion.
- Originality
- Structure
- Interest
- Clarity
- Accuracy
In addition, a verbal assessment of the submission is provided as a structured feedback. This section should contain detailed, constructive feedback. Use this space to point out specific strengths and weaknesses and suggest concrete ways the authors can improve their manuscript. You can list specific page or line numbers to make your feedback easier to follow. You may consider two categories of comment:
- Comments regarding formatting and structure: This can include (but is not limited to) consistency of referencing, whether the contents fit the abstract, etc
- Comments regarding content: This can include (but is not limited to) commentaries on factual errors, logical reasoning, references used well or poorly, etc
Each reviewer adheres to our Journal Code of Conduct (Review Guidelines):
1. Timeliness: Please aim to complete your review within the timeframe provided by the journal editor. If you are unable to meet the deadline, notify the editor as soon as possible.
2. Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript as a confidential document. Do not share it or discuss its contents with anyone.
3. Fit: Read the manuscript's title, abstract, and introduction to determine if the research both falls within the scope of the journal and fits with the author’s stated intentions.
4. Contribution: Ask whether the research topic is relevant and contributes meaningfully to its field. Does the research present new findings, methods, or a unique perspective? Is the work a valuable contribution to the existing literature?
5. Groundedness: Assess whether the piece is research-based or merely a matter of opinion.
6. Methodology and Data: Are the research methods clearly described and appropriate for the study? Are the data and results presented logically and accurately? Do they follow from the methods?
7. Clarity and Structure: Is the paper well-organised and easy to follow? Is the writing clear, concise, and free of grammatical errors? Does the abstract accurately reflect the content of the paper?
8. Literature Review: Does the introduction provide a comprehensive overview of relevant previous research? Are the cited sources appropriate and up-to-date?
9. Conclusion: Do the conclusions logically follow from the results? Do the authors discuss the limitations of their study and suggest directions for future research?
| Code | Meaning |
|---|---|
| A | Accepted |
| A minor | Accepted with minor revisions |
| A major | Accepted with major revisions |
| R | Rejected |
