Peer Review Guide

  1. The Editorial Board will forward a manuscript that reflects original research and thought for review. The editors ideally approach individuals with domain expertise about the manuscript’s subject area, who are at least equally if not more qualified than the author(s) of the piece. The Editors will by this stage have cross checked references cited by the author to ensure accuracy.
  2. The object of the review process is to analyse the merits of the manuscript and consider its suitability for publication. This culminates in a recommendation to the Editorial Board regarding whether the piece should be carried in the forthcoming issue of IJCL.
  3. It is recommended that reviewers give the manuscript they are considering at least two reads; the first, to get a sense of the direction that the piece is taking; and the second for a more detailed review.
  4. The following illustrative questions may be considered by reviewers:
    1. Is the methodology adopted by the piece logical and coherent?
    2. Is the author’s argument cogent?
    3. Does the author adequately engage with opposing views?
    4. Are there any major flaws in the overall argument?
    5. Is the content interesting, relevant and novel enough to justify publication? Does it take the conversation on the subject forward?
    6. Do the author’s conclusions flow logically from his or her analysis?
    7. Is there anything that might strengthen the author’s case?
  5. Specific recommendations on how the authors may improve their manuscript to make it publication worthy are very welcome.
  6. At IJCL, there is no strict format that reviewers must follow, and this is left to the discretion of the reviewer. In some instances, specific comments in the document containing the manuscript may be appropriate.
  7. Generally, reviewers’ comments are contained in a 1-page document which is divided into two parts:
    1. The first part locates the significance of the theme explored in the piece and examines why it is relevant. It restates the argument that is coming across from the author, to enable the author to appreciate how her argument is perceived by the reader. It then points out what the author has successfully accomplished through the manuscript. If the manuscript does not satisfactorily meet the requirements set forth here, this may be sufficient reason to recommend that the piece is rejected.
    2. The second part covers comments that are critical of the piece, including how it may be improved. For clarity, you are requested to number your comments.
  8. Reviewers should now be in a position to weigh their comments on the article and make their recommendation. A reviewer can make 3 possible recommendations. First, that a manuscript be accepted as is. Second, that it be rejected for the reasons provided. Or third, that the piece be conditionally accepted – subject to the author making the changes by the reviewer.
  9. The recommendation of the reviewer influences the decision to publish the manuscript. The Editorial Board reserves discretion to accept the reviewers recommendation, particularly in the instance of solicited manuscripts.