For Reviewers

 | Post date: 2018/05/11 | 

Guidelines for Reviewers

Thank you very much for agreeing to review a manuscript for IJMCL. Please follow the guidelines so that your review will be most helpful to us. These materials can be very helpful for reviewers, so please refer to them when evaluating submissions that include them.

Double-blind peer review policy

This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from each other throughout the review process.  To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity which means authors should submit the “Title Page” containing the Authors details and “Blinded Manuscript” with no author details as two separate files.

Please ensure the following when reviewing for IJMCL: 

 

Comments to the Editor

  • Your Comments to the Editor are confidential and will be read only by the editors; they will not be shared with the authors.
 
  • Please use the confidential Comments to the Editor box to explain your recommendation to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript; to discuss the severity of key weaknesses and whether they are potentially fixable; and to identify other reasons why the paper should or should not be published. 
 
  • Your recommendations to reject, revise, or accept a manuscript should be based primarily on the key strengths and major weaknesses of the science, not of the writing, and it should be consistent with your comments.
 
  • Please do not copy and paste the same material into the Comments to the Editor and Comments to Authors boxes.

Comments to Authors

  • Your Comments to Authors will be read by both the authors and the editors.
 
  • They should not reveal your confidential recommendation to reject, revise, or accept the paper, or your opinion as to whether it should be published.
 
  • Both the authors and the editors are counting on you to highlight the most important issues, i.e., the main reasons why you think the paper should be rejected, revised, or accepted.
 

Recommendation for authors

  • If you find any significant deficiencies, it is essential to consider whether they are potentially fixable or not. If they are related to study design, they may be serious and unfixable. These sorts of problems should lead you in the direction of recommending rejection, but if they are related to inappropriate statistical test in the primary analysis, they might be fixable if the authors are given a chance to revise and resubmit their manuscript.
 
  • If you cannot tell whether the major problems are fixable, you should consider recommending a major revision to give the authors a chance to address them.
 
  • Please make sure that the issues you identify as “major” truly are major weaknesses or problems. For example, an author’s failure to cite a certain paper, conduct a certain kind of secondary analysis, or discuss certain limitations is not major deficiencies.
 
  • Null results, is not a reasonable basis for rejection of a manuscript. If a study addresses an important question or concept, and if it is well designed, it can be informative even if the results are null.
 

Additional Resources

For more information on how to review a scientific paper for publication, please also visit the following links:
 
·        Reporting guidelines have been developed for many different kinds of studies, such as randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and pilot studies at www.equator-network.org. ·        Lovejoy TI, Revenson TA, & France CR (2001). Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42, 1-13. DOI: 10.1007/s12160-011-9269-x.

View: 1432 Time(s)   |   Print: 291 Time(s)   |   Email: 0 Time(s)   |   0 Comment(s)

© 2019 All Rights Reserved | International Journal of Motor Control and Learning

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb