Review Guidelines for First-time Reviewers
1. Your task as a review is not just to help us decide which paper to accept or reject for the conference, but also to help authors improve their work Please keep this mission in mind as you write your manuscript reviews. In order to achieve this goal, we ask you to provide some depth to your reviews, and be supportive in tone and content. A typical review is about a page or two in length; while there is variation in length, please note that one or two sentence reviews are not helpful to the authors.
2. Please write as if you were speaking to the author directly about his or her manuscript. This will facilitate a more “friendly” tone. For example, say “Your writing is very clear and interesting” instead of “The author’s writing is very clear and interesting”.
3. An empirical paper has four major parts. A conceptual paper does not have a Method part. Please comment on each aspect of the paper.
a. Introduction – is the research problem clearly stated? Does the author clearly explain why the research topic is important and how this paper will advance our knowledge on the topic?
b. Theory and hypotheses –Does the literature reviewed relate to the research problem? Are the hypotheses reasonable and interesting? Is the conceptual logic (theory) well explained and convincing?
c. Method – Is the sample appropriate for the study? What is the quality of
the measures? Are the statistical approaches relevant? Does the research design fit the hypotheses?
d. Results and discussion – Are the results interesting and significant? Does the discussion offer new insight on the phenomenon and provide important suggestions for future research?
4. It is helpful if you use a “numbering” system to make your points. Number each suggestion or comment within each of the main parts as described above. This helps you to organize your feedback.
5. Be specific about the problem you see and offer any suggestions wherever possible. Therefore, you are a “coach” as well as a “judge”.
6. Try to find positive features of the manuscripts as well as identifying problems. Even for manuscripts with serious problems that may not be able to be rectified, it is encouraging to provide some positive feedback to the author.
7. Please do not make statements such as “this manuscript should be accepted,” or “this manuscript has a good chance of being accepted,” or “this manuscript should not be accepted,” etc. In other words, please do not comment on the possible ultimate outcome of the manuscript.
8. After you have completed and sent back the review, please delete the manuscript immediately. All manuscripts are confidential and should not be shared with others.