Blind reviewing is a thankless task yet of such importance to the standing and quality of an academic journal.
1. Theoretical/Conceptual Soundness: The article should make reference to previous research or theories in the reported study. The theory, if any, behind the research should be logically applied and thoroughly justified. It should correctly interpret and appropriately synthesize relevant prior research. And finally, are the hypotheses, if any, derived from the theory to be tested, clearly stated, and are they actually tested?
2. Methodological Soundness: Qualitative or quantitative empirical studies reported on should have a systematic and coherent method of study. The article should include a clear account of the study's project background, objectives, subjects, methodology (methods should be the most recent, if not, the relevancy/ appropriateness should be questioned), data analysis, and conclusions.
The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.
Are the appropriate analytical techniques applied to the data collected, and the results correctly interpreted? Are the conclusions and/or implications correctly derived from the research findings?
3. Contribution: Does the article advance knowledge in/of the discipline? Are the findings and their implications noteworthy? Is the paper of interest to many people in the field or at least one segment of it (e.g., academics, practitioners, public policy makers, consumers etc.)?
The article should also discuss the implications of the reported project, and/or report on any conclusions or products which may be of relevance to future research, development or practice.
4. Communication: The article should be of an acceptable quality in terms of linguistic accuracy, clarity and coherence. Is the article clearly written and the major points easily grasped? Is the article laid out in a logical format? Data presentation/ tabulation: Any irrelevant tables/ figures should be checked.
The reviewer should comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.
The reviewer's comments to the author should be constructive, professional and be sufficiently specific in order to help the author improve the article when revising it for publication or re-submission to Horizon journal (in the event that it is rejected by Horizon). If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the Chief Executive Editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the journal that they may do so.
Click here to view the “Reviewer’s Guidelines”.