Reviewers

Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers

Peer reviewers must follow these ethical guidelines when reviewing for CR journal articles:

1. Reviewers must give unbiased consideration to each manuscript submitted. They should judge each on its merits, without regard to race, religion, nationality, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).
2. Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest before agreeing to review a manuscript. This includes any relationship with the author(s) that may bias their review.
3. Reviewers must keep the peer review process confidential. They must not share information or correspondence about a manuscript with anyone outside of the peer review process without the explicit permission of the editor.
4. They must not enter unpublished manuscript files, images or information into databases or tools that do not guarantee confidentiality, are accessible by the public and/or may store or use this information for their own purposes (for example, generative AI tools like ChatGPT).
5. Reviewers must prepare their report by themselves, unless they have permission from the journal to involve another person.
6. Reviewers must not use artificial intelligence tools to generate manuscript review reports, including LLM based tools like ChatGPT.
7. Reviewers should provide a constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and appropriately substantial peer review report. Reviewers are responsible for ensuring any references included within their report are accurate and verifiable.
8. Reviewers must avoid making statements in their report which might be interpreted as questioning any person’s reputation.
9. Reviewers should make all reasonable effort to submit their report and recommendation on time. They should inform the editor if this is not possible.
10. Reviewers should call to the journal editor’s attention any significant similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or submitted manuscripts of which they are aware.

 How to write a peer review report

Here’s a step-by-step guide that will give you an organized process when writing your peer review report. So, when you write a peer review report for a manuscript, this guide will help you know what you should include in your comments, what you should leave out, and how you should structure your review. Make sure you use this guide outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and authors to understand your report. This will also help you keep your comments organized.

Below is a step-by-step guide to help you review a manuscript and make your recommendation.

Step 1. Research the journal

Visit the journal homepage the aims and scope and instructions for authors to get a sense of the journal’s scope and content. This will help you determine if the paper you’re reviewing is suitable for the journal or not.

Step 2. Read the paper

While you read the paper remember to check over any tables, figures, or supplementary data. Bear in mind that the main factors you should provide advice on are:

• The originality, presentation, and relevance of the manuscript’s subject matter to the readership of the journal.
• The accuracy and validity of the methodology, and whether the conclusions are appropriately supported.

Step 3. Write your report

It is often helpful to begin with a brief summary of the work and the main findings as you understand them, along with a summary of your overall opinion.

Being critical whilst remaining sensitive to the author isn’t always easy. A good rule is to direct your criticism towards the work carried out and avoid comments that may be interpreted as personal criticism of the author.

Here are a few things to consider when writing your report:

• Your comments must be suitable to send to the author. Please make constructive suggestions, seek clarification on any unclear points, and ask for further elaboration. Remember that authors will welcome positive feedback as well as constructive criticism.
• If the paper reports original research, comment on whether the methods are appropriate and whether the work was carried out to the standards expected within your field.
• Note any aspects that you are unable to assess, whether this is due to lack of clarity or because it is outside your expertise.
• You should make suggestions on how the author can improve clarity, conciseness, and the quality of the presentation.
• Confirm whether you feel the subject of the paper is sufficiently interesting to justify its length. If you recommend shortening, mention specific areas where you think this is required.
• It’s not the reviewer’s job to edit the paper for spelling, grammar, etc., but it is helpful if you can note specific points where the technical meaning is unclear.
• You may disagree with the author’s opinions, but you should allow them to argue their case, provided their evidence supports it.
• Reviewers are not expected to detect research integrity concerns in manuscripts, but your expertise may allow you to spot potential issues that editorial staff or the editor have missed. If you suspect misconduct, please let the publisher or the editor know as soon as possible.

Step 4. Submit your report and make a recommendation

Read through all your comments and please be sure to complete all sections of the review submission checklist. Once you’ve read the paper and have assessed its quality, you may need to make an overall recommendation to the editor to help them make a decision. The specific options used by a journal will vary, but the key recommendations are:

• Accept: The paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
• Minor revision: The paper will be ready for publication after light revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author makes.
• Major revision: The paper needs substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.
• Reject: The paper isn’t suitable for publication in this journal, or the revisions needed are too extensive for the submission to continue being considered in its current form. It is helpful to the editor if you can explain (in confidential comments if necessary) whether your recommendation is based upon the level of advance or whether it is due to technical flaws.

Revisions

When authors make revisions to their article, they are asked to include a list of changes and any comments for the reviewers. The revised version may be assessed by the editor if only minor revisions were requested or may be returned to the original reviewers if available. You will then be asked to affirm whether the revisions are satisfactory.

On behalf of Curriculum Research Journal editorial board, thank you for contributing your expertise as a valued member of our community of reviewers. If you have any queries, please contact the Director-in-Charge.