Referee Guidelines

Thank you for participating in the peer review process. This is your chance to reciprocate the generosity shown by those that have contributed their time and effort to your past works. Remember to be ethical and fair in your role as a referee. An author’s past efforts and future prospects are in the hands of the expert during the review process. The power position of referee-to-author can be reversed in the future. The author’s manuscript represents privileged information. Please maintain confidentiality in the blinded-review process. Any information reveled to you in the process must not be transmitted in any manner until a reasonable time has elapsed or until the article is published.

All submissions should be quickly checked as being appropriate for your level of expertise and that there are no ethical constraints on your role as a dispassionate reviewer. Quickly return submissions not appropriate to you, for any reason.

Sort the submission by the following standard: the manuscript represents original work that is worthwhile and presented in a scholarly manner. Triage submissions into one of three recommendations:

A – Accept for publication as is,

B– The majority of manuscripts, falling between the two extremes of unreserved acceptance or complete rejection. Some are acceptable but could be improved with some suggestions. Some have deficiencies that require revision. And some show the promise of valuable content but have major deficiencies requiring a complete revision and re-submission. They are poorly written, unorganized, incomplete, show bias, fail to follow required convention or have other flaws that could be corrected. The B scores are:

B1 – Acceptable for publication but would benefit by suggested improvements.

B2 – Suitable for review but needs some revision before recommending publication.

B3 – Has potential but requires extensive revision before being re-submitted.

R – Reject, as not worthy of academic publication, because they are agenda-driven, lacking originality or suffering other irredeemable flaws.

For the B-level manuscripts, continue the review process, answering yes or no to the following. The manuscript adds worthwhile and original findings, observations or approach to its field of study.The writing is clear and concise. Nomenclature is used properly; jargon is avoided. The introduction includes relevant background, starting from the general and well established, and narrowing to the key point of the inquiry, thus, establishing the position of the submission, in its field of study. Any hypothesis, observation or approach is clearly declared. The methods of inquiry are appropriate and valid. Findings are presented in an unbiased manner. Conclusions follow logically from the methods and findings. Discussion and suggestions for further study is compelling. All statements requiring citations are properly referenced. The manuscript is consistent with the OPUSeJ style-guide or another established scholarly style-guide. Any images are appropriate to illustrating the text, and are properly labelled and credited.

Return your opinion. If the manuscript is acceptable, include any suggestions for further improvement. If revision is required, identify those parts where changes are mandatory for publication. Include directions for revising the manuscript. Add any suggestions that are not mandatory but could be incorporated to improve the manuscript. If a complete revision and re-submission is required, give directions of how this might be done. Try to avoid excessively citing your work in any correspondence that might reach the author. Include the OPUSeJ reference number in all communications regarding this manuscript.

Address all comments, not to the author, but to the editor.




Leave a Reply