Peer review of article

A. Intellectual Impact of the Article
1 How well does the article function as a piece of writing (i.e. quality of language, exposition, description, voice)?
2 Is the article scientifically accurate?
3 Does the design, flow and the creativity of the article encourage learning?

B. Broader Impact of the Article
1 How well does the article function as a piece of teaching (i.e. quality of pedagogy, clarity of explanations)? Does the article tell a nice story and teach you something new? Is the article too general and/or lack details that would make the story more educational?
2 Does the article contain all the necessary components needed to describe the story or are some things missing that could enhance the story?

C. Technical Details of the Article
1 Has the author included at least ten sources and at least 6 from primary journals?
2 Has the author included at least 4 high-quality figures and/or tables? Did the author provide a reference for each and every figure and/or table? Could the figures be improved, if so how can they be improved?
3 Has the author properly referenced their sources throughout their article with either a number or using author’s last name?
4 Is the article approximately 1,000 words long?

D. Based on your answers above, what is your final recommendation?
1 Publish the article in its current state (the article is excellent). Very few manuscripts will earn this recommendation.
2 Publish the article with minor revisions (the article is very good).
3 Publish the article after major revisions are made to it. The article needs substantial work before it is ready for publication. This could include major changes required to fix figures and tables, or major changes required to large portions of the text. Does the author need to start over completely?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *