Information for Reviewers

Review Guidelines

Peer review, also known as refereeing, is a collaborative process that allows manuscripts submitted to a journal to be evaluated and commented upon by independent experts within the same field of research. The evaluation and critique generated from peer review provides authors with feedback to improve their work and, critically, allows the editor to assess the paper’s suitability for publication in the journal. The process aims to provide authors with constructive feedback from relevant experts, which they can use to make improvements to their work, thus ensuring it meets the highest possible standards. Authors expect reviews to contain an honest and constructive appraisal, completed in a timely manner, that provides feedback that is both clear and concise.

Reviews for JMDE are typically constructive, detailed narrative reviews intended to assist the author(s) in improving their manuscript.

Reviews for JMDE are typically due within four weeks of the review request.

In preparing a review, reviewers should aim to establish that:

• a submitted manuscript is original work which neither has been previously published nor is under consideration by another journal, in part or whole;
• the manuscript meets all applicable standards of ethics;
• the manuscript is relevant to the journal’s aims, scope, and readership;
• a submitted manuscript presents original research findings (if relevant);
• a submitted review manuscript (or similar) offers a comprehensive critical review and evaluation of key literature sources for a given topic; and
• the manuscript is methodologically and technically sound (if relevant).

Competing Interests. Reviewers are required to uphold the integrity of the peer review process. A competing interest is anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to JMDE. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relation to an organization or another person.

Editors will not ask anyone with clear competing interests to review an article. For example, a reviewer will not be assigned in the following situations: 

• The authors are known to be former students of the proposed reviewer. 
• The reviewer holds or has recently (within the last two years) held grants with any of the authors.
• The reviewer is thanked in the acknowledgments.
• The reviewer has ownership or shares in the evaluand.
• The reviewer has published with the author during the past three years.

If a reviewer identifies or discovers a competing interest, they must immediately notify the editor who will decide whether the competing interest warrants disqualification as a reviewer of the item in question.