ERJSSH attaches great importance to maintaining a high standard of its peer-reviewed sections. Manuscripts submitted for publication in ERJSSH must not have been published elsewhere. Papers must present arguments and evidence in a concise and readable form (max. length according to guidelines = 8,000 words). They are written by scholars and specialists from throughout the world and cover all continents. Contributions by authors from developing countries are encouraged.
Reviewers are requested to fill in the “ERJSSH Reviewer Checklist” which is sent to them together with the anonymous manuscript. The ERJSSH Reviewer Checklist consists of ten questions that will help him/her in making a comprehensive assessment of the paper.
The reviewer may give the following overall recommendations:
- ACCEPT UNCONDITIONALLY: when a manuscript is a valuable contribution to the relevant field of research and no revisions of any kind are needed (apart from very minor language corrections which can be made during copyediting).
- ACCEPT MINOR REVISIONS: when a manuscript is a valuable contribution to the relevant field of research but requires minor revisions prior to publication. Be explicit about the revisions requested so that the author and editors know what changes are needed. The review of the revised manuscript will be handled by the editorial team.
- ACCEPT WITH MAJOR REVISIONS: when a manuscript has the potential to become a valuable contribution to the relevant field of research but requires major revisions prior to publication. Be explicit in the revisions requested so that the author and editors know what changes are needed. The review of the revised manuscript will be handled by the editorial team.
- REJECT OUTRIGHT: when a manuscript does not have the potential to become a valuable contribution to the relevant field of research. Please provide a complete rationale for your decision, but do not include recommendations for revising the article. The authors will receive the peer reviewers' comments and rationale, but they will not be invited to resubmit their manuscript.
- you know you will not be able to make the deadline;
- you were directly involved in the work discussed in the paper;
- you helped write the paper or reviewed the paper for a colleague prior to submission;
- you feel so strongly about the topic that you do not believe you can be objective;
- you believe the article is outside your area of expertise; -you are certain you know the authors and can therefore not be objective
• Is the content original, relevant, appropriate
• Does the title reflect the content?
• Does the abstract reflects the background, objectives, method, result and conclusion
• Is the study rationale adequately described?
• Are the study objectives clearly stated and defined
• Are objectives/ questions/ hypothesis clearly delineate and adequately describe what the author seeks to bring about as a result of his/her writing?
• Are reviewed literatures relevant and recent?
• Does the literature provide clear support to key theoretical and methodological issues or questions being investigated?
• Does the review identifies areas of controversy in the literature and shows the gap/s in the text?
• Is the conceptual /theoretical framework clearly articulated and serves as a tool to scaffold research, analyse the data, clearly set the constructs of the study and help to make meaning of subsequent findings?
• Is there a convincing support from literature provided for the choice of a particular research design?
• Are data collections methods and procedures clearly justified and provided as well as linked to literature review?
• Are the data collected from primary and secondary sources?
• Are the constructs of the study clear and appropriate?
• Check that ethics are adequately described
• Demand statements of each individual’s contribution to the research and publication
• Use checklists to prevent ghost authorship
• Ask all authors to sign an authorship declaration
• Clearly specify authorship criteria in the instructions to authors
• Has the author plagiarized another publication?
• Is the research ethical and have the appropriate approvals/consent been obtained?
• Is there any indication that the data has been fabricated or inappropriately manipulated?
• Have the authors declared all relevant competing interests?
Analysis, results, discussion and conclusion
• Are the methods of data analysis appropriate?
• Do the results answer the research question?
• Are the results credible?
• Is statistical significance well documented (e.g. as confidence intervals or P-value)?
• Are the findings presented logically with appropriate displays and explanations?
• Are data interpretations clear?
• Are data interpretations logically linked to results, discussions, conclusions and recommendations?
• Do they have accuracy and consistency?
• How well are the key findings stated?
• To what extent have differences or similarities with other studies been discussed
and reasons for these given
• Are the findings discussed in the light of previous evidence?
• Are the implications of these findings clearly explained?
• Is the interpretation warranted by and sufficiently derived from and focused on
the data and results?
• Do the results justify the conclusion(s)?
• Are conclusions drawn logically from results, discussions and backed by
relevant issues in the review?
• Do results clearly re-enforce claims made in the discussion?
• Are discussions clearly backed by relevant issues in the review?
Acknowledgement, recommendations, presentation and language: 10%
• Are acknowledgements for sources used clearly shown in the text and in the references
• Have the various sections of the research been clearly identified and presented?
• Do recommendations refer back to statement of problem and relate to conclusions?
• Do recommendations suggest new/interesting perspective into existing debate?
• Are the languages used appropriate, clear and to the standard?