Reviewers Informaton Pack 2013 - (Page 14)
REVIEWERS’ INFORMATION PACK
7. A BRIEF GUIDE TO REVIEWING
7.1. Purpose of Peer Review
7.3. Conducting the Review
Peer review is a critical element of scholarly publication, and one of the
major cornerstones of the scientific process. Peer review serves two key
functions:
Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially, the article you have
been asked to review should not be disclosed to a third party. If you
wish to elicit opinion from colleagues or students regarding the article
you should let the editor know beforehand. Most editors welcome
additional comments, but whoever else is involved will likewise need to
keep the review process confidential. You should not attempt to contact
the author.
• Acts as a filter: ensures research is properly verified before being
published.
• Improves the quality of the research: rigorous review by other experts
helps to hone key points and correct inadvertent errors.
7.2. On being asked to Review
Does the article you are being asked to review
truly match your expertise?
The Editor who has approached you may not know your work
intimately, and may only be aware of your work in a broader context.
Only accept an invitation if you are competent to review the article.
Do you have time to review the paper?
Reviewing an article can be quite time consuming. The time taken to
review can vary from field to field, but an article will take, on average, 3
hours to review properly. Will you have sufficient time before the
deadline stipulated in the invitation to conduct a thorough review? If you
cannot conduct the review let the editor know immediately, and if
possible advise the editor of alternative reviewers.
Are there any potential conflicts of interest?
A conflict of interest will not necessarily eliminate you from reviewing
an article, but full disclosure to the editor will allow them to make an
informed decision. For example, if you work in the same department or
institute as one of the authors, worked on a paper previously with an
author or have a professional or financial connection to the article.
These should all be listed when responding to the editor’s invitation for
review.
14
Be aware when you submit your review that any recommendations you
make will contribute to the final decision made by the editor.
Set aside two or three hours to conduct the review. It is better to
complete the evaluation in one go rather than snatching time here and
there.
Depending upon the journal, you will be asked to evaluate the article
on a number of criteria. Some journals provide detailed guidance others
do not, but normally you would be expected to evaluate the article
according to the following:
Originality
Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication?
Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the
journal’s standards? Is the research question an important one? In order
to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal it might
be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in? Is
it in the top 25% of papers in this field? You might wish to do a quick
literature search using tools such as Scopus to see if there are any
reviews of the area. If the research has been covered previously, pass on
references of those works to the editor.
www.elsevier.com/reviewers
http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Reviewers Informaton Pack 2013
Reviewers Informaton Pack 2013
Contents
About Elsevier
About Peer Review
Duties of Reviewers
Peer-Review System
Supporting Our Reviewers
Listening to Our Reviewers
A Brief Guide to Reviewing
Reviewers Informaton Pack 2013
http://europe.nxtbook.com/nxteu/elsevier/reviewersinfo2013
http://europe.nxtbook.com/nxteu/elsevier/em_infopack
https://www.nxtbookmedia.com