Reviewer Guidelines: Article and Review Article Manuscripts
Reviewers are selected by the IQAS editors for manuscripts of submitted articles and review articles. We ask our reviewers to kindly follow the questions below, which include an assessment of the scientific quality of the article in general; the pertinence, originality and coherence of its content; the clarity of its arguments and structure; sufficient and explicit methodology and theoretical framing; its adequacy and present relevance; the selection of references; and clear written expression with regard to language. The reviewer makes sure that the citation in the work is sufficient and otherwise point out any instances of incorrect citations/plagiarism.
- Scientific Quality
Does the manuscript in general meet the standards for academic articles? Is the research question clear, the analysis based on an appropriate methodology and theoretical foundations, and the conclusion convincing?
- Originality & Relevance
Does the article present original research results? Is the issue being raised innovative and the contribution of the author clear and sufficient to be regarded as an original piece of research? Does it make a significant contribution to the existing scholarly discourse?
Is the structure logical and easy to follow? Can the main research question be identified? Can the arguments be easily followed? Are the results clearly presented and do they support the conclusions?
- Theory & Method
Is the theoretical framework stated and clear? Are current academic debates taken into account? Is the research methodologically sound? Are the methods used appropriate for the research questions?
Are the works and/or words of others appropriately cited or quoted according to scientific standards? Can any instances of incorrect citations/plagiarism be pointed out? Is the list of references comprehensive and sufficient? Does the list of references reflect relevant current works on the research topic?
Is the language appropriate, clear and understandable? Language correction itself is not a requested part of the peer review process, as all articles are subjected to a standard proofreading procedure later.
When selected as reviewer you are provided a personal account and access to our online management system where you will find the full text of the article manuscript. You can either enter your comments and assessment there or use this template for article reviews (which has to be uploaded to our management system).
Please select one of the four categories which represents your recommendation to our editors best: 1) accept without any changes, 2) accept with minor changes, 3) revise and resubmit (after major changes), or 4) reject.
Good Practices Commitment
We ask our reviewers to evaluate submissions objectively and efficiently. If a conflict of interest is apparent or becomes apparent during the review process with regard to the topic of research, the author(s), and/or other parties involved, the reviewer is obliged to withdraw from the assignment immediately. Reviewers justify their evaluation of the submission transparently. In the evaluation the reviewers avoid personal criticism. Instead, they work with constructive critique centred on the manuscript. Moreover, reviewers uphold the commitment to confidentiality. They do not copy, cite or distribute the unpublished manuscript.