Reviewer Guidelines

1. Your Feedback

  • Please fill in the review page on the website.
  • As your written review will give constructive feedback to the author(s), please make sure that you write in a style that is truthful, while at the same time accessible and respectful.
  • There will be authors whose first language is not English, so please write in a style that is accessible (e.g., avoid complex syntax and words of very low frequency).
  • Number your comments and relate to the page and paragraph number when referring to specific information in the text. Please copy the relevant lines from the manuscript. For more detailed comments, reviewers may make track changes on the manuscript.  
  • Consider first giving positive feedback. However, this should be balanced if you will recommend rejecting the manuscript.
  • Summarize the main points of the article, their significance and contextualize them in relevant theory and research.
  • List what you feel are the strengths of the manuscript.
  • Indicate any problematic issues (e.g., flaws in research design, omission of relevant theories/research).
  • You will be asked to choose one of the following recommendations: request modifications, and then to accept, or reject. If accepted under condition that modifications are made, please click on both buttons. If rejected, please click on the Reject button.
  • Your recommendation should relate the following considerations:
    • appeal to the interests of JEPIC’s readership
    • originality 
    • sound scholarship and research design
    • clear relationship between theory and practice
    • implications and/or applications for practice in the field
    • justified conclusions
    • significant contribution to the field
    • appropriate, correctly interpreted references
    • overall quality of writing  
    • conformity with the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).

2. Specific comments

  • Already during the first reading, you are likely to notice flaws in the manuscript. Please indicate the nature and severity of your misgivings.
  • Have the authors properly acknowledged similar work published elsewhere?
  • Have the authors addressed contradictory or dissenting views with relevant citations and presented strong evidence to support their findings?
  • Did you encounter any ethical issues? You may want to elaborate in the confidential comments to the editors section.
  • In case of major revisions, please make clear recommendations to guide the authors.
  • Are references appropriate, sufficient, and cited correctly?
  • Please inform the editors of any factual errors or issues of language and structure that impede meaning. It is not the task of the reviewer to edit the manuscript. 
  • Are all figures and tables clear, appropriate, and labeled correctly?

3. Confidential comments to the editors

JEPIC provides reviewers with the option to share confidential comments with the editors. Such comments can relate to suspicions of plagiarism, unattributed work, procedures which are unethical, unacceptable bias, duplicate publication in contradiction to the rules for submission, and any other conflicts of interest. Reviewers, however, should not see this as an opportunity to vent against the author(s) and such comments, while confidential, should be written as if they were to be shared with the author.

4. Recommendations

  1. Accept: if you recommend accepting the submission with no revisions, please include an explanation of the basis for the acceptance. Descriptions such as ‘this is perfect’ or ‘great’ or ‘I really enjoyed this’ are not acceptable and do not assist the editors in making their selection of submissions for each issue.
  2. Accept with revisions: if the submission is suitable for publication according to the journal’s requirements but requires minor semantic/stylistic/linguistic revisions, please list the specific corrections that are required by the author.
  3. Recommend major revisions and resubmission: if you feel the content of the submission has merit but cannot be published in its current form, you may recommend that the author implement your revisions and then resubmit for a future issue when it will undergo a new review. Please indicate clearly in your report which revisions must be carried out in case the author would like to resubmit.
  4. Reject: it should quickly become clear to the reviewer during the first reading, that the submission is unacceptable and should be rejected. In this case, continue reading the complete submission and provide constructive feedback to the author to assist them in improving their future research and submissions. You should make clear to the writer why their work has been rejected. Ensure your focus remains on the content. Avoid comments on the author. As a reviewer, your comments should help the author grow as a researcher and writer. 

Comments are closed.