For the Peer Reviewer

Näyttämö ja tutkimus has been awarded the national peer-review label by the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies and has committed to respecting the conditions for the use of that label.

Each peer-reviewed article goes through a process in which at least two anonymous reviewers read the anonymised article and give a written report on it using our peer review form.

Peer reviewers must have a doctoral degree and a high level of expertise in the topic discussed in the article. Should the editorial team so decide, one reviewer may be selected based on their professional expertise, even if they do not hold a doctoral degree. The reviewers must not be close associates of the authors, for example, colleagues. The peer reviewer cannot be the editor-in-chief, the editorial secretary, nor the editor assigned to the article.

Once the Näyttämö ja tutkimus editorial team has assessed the proposed article as suitable for Näyttämö ja tutkimus, they may suggest revisions and clarifications to the author before submitting the article for peer review. The person designated by the editorial team (editor-in-chief/editorial secretary/editor assigned for the article) will approach the peer reviewers via email or the Journal.fi service. As background information, the potential peer reviewer will be provided with the title and abstract of the article via the Journal.fi service, based on which the reviewer will accept or reject the request to act as a peer reviewer. Once the assignment is accepted, the peer reviewer has five weeks to write a review.

 

Peer review form

The peer reviewer will give a report on the text they have evaluated by filling in a special form. Download the form here, fill it in with the word processor on your own device, and then return it via the Journal.fi service in .doc/.docx/.pdf format.

The form asks the reviewer to rate the merits and development needs of the article on a five-point scale and to choose an overall assessment from the following options:
– accept as is
– accept with minor revisions
– accept with major revisions: no re-review
– major revisions suggested: re-review required
– reject

The reviewer shall also provide a narrative evaluation in the open field of the form.

Peer reviewers are instructed to give ethical, constructive, and encouraging feedback.

 

Once the reports have been received, the designated editor for the article, together with the rest of the editorial team, will offer help in revising the article and arrange for any further rounds of review. The editor-in-chief accepts the article for publication based on a proposal from the designated editor.