Guidelines for Reviewers

When agreeing to act as a peer reviewer, the evaluator will commit to the following principles:

  • Manuscripts under evaluation are confidential.
  • Manuscripts under evaluation must not be discussed with or displayed to third parties.
  • The content of manuscripts may not be used for your own benefit. 

The purpose of the evaluation is to help the Journal’s Editorial Board decide upon the publication of the manuscript under evaluation. The reviewer evaluates the scope of the research material, the theoretical framework, the reliability and accuracy of the research, and the originality and novelty value of the results in relation to earlier research in a manner specific to the discipline. 

The reviewer writes a statement evaluating the merits and shortcomings of the manuscript in terms of content, structure, and other noteworthy points. A typical review is 1–6 pages long. It is sent to the editor by the agreed time. The reviewer should recommend either rejection of the proposed article, acceptance with no changes, or acceptance with major or minor changes. A copy of the statement, or its summary, is always sent to the author.

Amongst questions the review should address are the following:

Quality of research and its presentation

  • Are the research questions, sources and methods presented in the introduction in an intelligible and accurate manner? Is there enough material to carry out the research task?
  • Is the author familiar with the current state of research (literature) on the topic? How does he/she evaluate the new contribution in this context?
  • Is the theoretical, methodological or conceptual framework presented in an accurate manner?
  • Does the author, in his/her text, achieve what he/she promises in the introduction, and does the analysis support the conclusions?
  • What is the originality and novelty value of the results in relation to the previous research?

Structure, illustrations, language

  • Does the manuscript form a balanced, well-founded and coherent structure? 
  • Are the references (footnotes) sufficient and relevant?
  • What is the relationship between the possible illustration and the written text, are the images informative and necessary?
  • Is the article understandable mainly to those familiar with the discipline in question, or more broadly to an academic or wider audience?
  • Does the article require language revision?

The review should be written constructively, encouragingly and reasonably, taking into account that the styles of authors are different. If the reviewer considers the manuscript to be inadequate in some respects, he/she must help the author with concrete suggestions for improving the manuscript.

The review should highlight the possible doubts about plagiarism or deficiencies in the reference technique. The articles submitted to the Journal of the ISOCM should comply with the guidelines of the Chicago Manual of Style (Notes and Bibliography).

There is no fee for the review.