Guidelines for Reviewers

  • It is a professional honor to be invited to review a scientific manuscript as part of the peerreview process. Please take this job seriously. The journal's reputation depends in part onthis peer review process.
  • Be critical. It is easier for an editor to overturn very critical comments than to overturnfavorable comments.
  • Justify all criticisms by specific references to the text of the paper or to published literature.Vague criticisms are unhelpful.
  • Don’t repeat information from the paper, such as the title and authors names, since thisalready appears elsewhere in the review form.
  • Check the Aims and Scope of the journal to ensure that your comments are in accordancewith journal policy.
  • Give a clear recommendation. Don't put "I will leave the decision to the editor" unless youare genuinely unsure of your recommendation.
  • Number your comments so that the authors can easily refer to them.
  • Be specific - refer to line numbers in the paper or to exact regions where you wish changes tooccur.
  • Be careful not to identify yourself by your comments or by the file name of your report if yousubmit it as a Word file.
  • Read the abstract first to see if what the authors are stating makes logical sense, and if it iswritten in a way that is comprehensible. Some manuscripts involve excellent work andinteresting observations, but they are so poorly written that it is difficult to understand whatthe author is saying. This is a relatively common problem with authors whose nativelanguage is not English. If the work reported in the manuscript looks interesting and/orvaluable, the manuscript should be sent back for editing by a native English speaker orprofessional translator.
  • Is the observation made and reported in the manuscript something new or is it work thatreproduces previously made observations? Clearly, the more original the observation, themore likely that the manuscript should be accepted for publication.
  • Examine tables and figures to see if the legends are clear and if the tables and figuresdemonstrate the same thing that is stated in the text. Frequently, material placed in a tabledoes not have to be reported in detail in the Results section of the manuscript.
  • Look to see if the statistical analysis seems to make sense.
  • Read the discussion and see if it makes sense and if it reflects what the data in the articlereport. Look for unnecessary conjecture or unfounded conclusions that are not based on theevidence presented.
  • Is the manuscript concise and well organized? Most of the manuscripts that I receive couldbe shortened with improvement.
  • Is the quality of the figures or photos adequate for accurate reproduction?
  • Has the author followed the instructions to authors that are part and parcel of your journal'ssubmission criteria?
  • Subjectively, do you believe what the authors are telling you or do you suspect someconsistent error in the hypothesis, methods, analysis of data, etc.? Is there some chance thatthere is scientific fraud or plagiarism involved in this manuscript?

Download Review Form





University of Dubrovnik, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Dubrovnik, CROATIA Facebook Twitter