The process by which articles will be evaluated is an important part of establishing a journal.
Journals may decided to have different processes for different sections of the journal. For example, a commentary column may be reviewed only by the editor while a research article may be subjected to an anonymous peer review process.
This section of the guide outlines the different types of review and provides some sample forms to assist in developing the review process.
Editorial review is an assessment of an article undertaken by a member of the editorial staff.
For some sections of the journal, editorial review may be the only assessment taken of an article. This is more often the case for non-research articles such as book reviews, commentary, opinion etc.(although in some journals these sections are peer-reviewed as well).
Editorial review is also a part of the peer-review process. Typically editors will take a first pass at an article to determine if it's worthwhile to send out for peer review. They will typically evaluate if the article is:
Image credit. © Jessica Lange. Licensed under Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 International
For a light read on the perspective of being an editor see:
Looser, D.( 2016, June 25). How your journal editor works.Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/article/How-Your-Journal-Editor-Works/236911?cid=rc_right
Peer review is the process by which experts in the subject area review and article and provide their feedback.
Journals typically have between 1-3 reviewers per article depending on the journal's review criteria and the availability of reviewers.
Journals should establish how they will recruit peer reviewers. For example, will a general call be put out on a listserv? Can anyone volunteer to be a peer reviewer or should there be an application procedure? If there's an application procedure, what's the criteria for acceptance?
Table 1: Different Types of Peer Review
Type of review
|Anonymous (Single)*||Reviewers know the names of the authors but the authors do not know who are the reviewers.||
|Anonymous (Double)*||Reviewers do not know the names of the authors nor do the authors know who are the reviewers.||
|Open review||Names of both the authors and peer reviewers are available and the review may be made publicly-available. See BMJ.||
If the journal is using an anonymous review process, it should have instructions to editors and authors to properly anonymize a manuscript. This would include:
Journals will typically provide guidelines for reviewers. This helps the reviews know how they should frame their assessment of the article. Some articles will also provide forms or rubrics for their peer reviewers to fill out.
See below for several examples:
In either review scenario (e.g. editorial review or peer review), there is a set of typical language to provide feedback to authors about their article.
Journals can assist their peer reviews by providing their own definitions for recommendation decisions.
McGill Library • Questions? Ask us!