• Send page
  • Print page

Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

10-02-2012 Article, International Review of the Red Cross

The anonymous peer-review process is there to assist the editorial team in making an objective critical evaluation of the manuscripts we receive for publication and to improve the quality of articles published in the Review through constructive comments and suggestions. We hope that the guidelines below will assist our peer reviewers in preparing helpful reviews and we are grateful for the time and commitment they devote to this.

Topic and title

  • Has the author put forth an interesting problem or question? Does the problem seem too broad or too narrow? Does it fit with the rest of the proposed topics in the journal? If not, how might the author narrow or broaden the problem/question?
  • Do you as a reader care about this problem or question? If not, why not?
  • Is the title of the article adequate? Does it convey well the content of the article? Is it catchy? If not – would you suggest a reformulation?

Content

  • Is the topic well researched and referenced? Are there important references to the literature on this subject missing? Please point them out.
  • Is the information presented accurate? If there are factual/legal inaccuracies, please point them out.
  • Is the thesis/question/problem of the article novel and relevant to the overall theme of this issue of the Review?

Structure and argumentation

  • Does the author formulate a clear thesis/question/problem at the beginning of the article, and is this developed in the article?  
  • Does the structure make sense? What works well, and what works less well?
  • Has the author made smooth transitions between the different parts/sections of the article? Are some sections too long/too short, or irrelevant? Please point them out.
  • Is the flow of the arguments logical? Are the connections between arguments logical? If not, why not?
  • Does the author provide sufficient support for each point? If not, can you think of more pertinent or persuasive examples?
  • Does the author take sufficiently into account other perspectives that exist on the topic? Is the argumentation thorough? If not, what more can be added?

Language and style

  • Does the introduction engage you? If not, why not?  
  • Is the language of the article vivid and clear? Is it grammatically correct? Are the sentences clear and easy to read? What can be improved?

Deadline for peer reviews: two weeks from receipt of document.


Related pages