Guidelines for Reviewers
05/09/2018 | 12:11:22
Before accepting or declining an invitation to review a manuscript from Journal of Economics and Development, reviewers should consider the following issues as:
(i) Does the manuscript match/suit your area of expertise? Only accept if you can provide a high-quality review.
(ii) Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
(iii) Do you have enough time? Reviewing can be a lot of works – before committing, make sure you can meet the deadline.
Respond to the invitation as soon as you can. Delaying in your decision will slow down the review process, whether you agree to review or not. If you decline the invitation, please provide alternative reviewers for the manuscript (if any).
In case of accepting to review the manuscript, you must view the manuscript as confidential document. This means that you cannot share it with anyone without prior permission from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone.
First read the manuscript and then take a break from it, give much time to think. Consider the manuscript from your own perspective. When you write the review, make sure you know what the journal is looking for, and have a copy of any specific reviewing criteria if you need to consider.
Your review will help the editor decide or reject to issue the manuscript. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name.
Showing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgments so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasons behind your comments/opinions. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.
- Summarize the manuscript in a short paragraph. This shows the editor you have read and understood the article.
- Give your main impressions of the manuscript, including whether it is novel and interesting, whether it has a sufficient impact and adds to the knowledge premises.
- Indicate any journal-specific points – does it adhere to JED’s standards?
- Give specific comments and suggestions, including about writing style and presentation, title, abstract, introduction, graphical abstracts and/or highlights, methodology, results and discussions, conclusion/implications/recommendations, language and references and others.
- If you have doubt in plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, raise your suspicions with the editor, providing as much details as possible.
- According to JED’s ethic policy, reviewers must treat any manuscripts they are asked to review as confidential materials. Because peer review is confidential, they must not share the review or information about the review with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved. This applies both during and after the issuance process.
- Any suggestion that the author includes citations to reviewers’ work must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing reviewers’ citation counts or enhancing the visibility of reviewers’ work.
When you make a suggestion, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the manuscript:
+ Accept the manuscript to be issued without revisions.
+ Revise – either major or minor (explain the revision that is required).
+ Reject (please be specific).
The editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the manuscript. The editor will weigh all views and may call for a third opinion or ask the author(s) for a revised manuscript before making a final decision. In the future, online editorial system provides reviewers with a notification of the final decision.