HomeJournal of Emerging Financial Markets and Policy

Guidelines for Reviewing

Guidelines for Reviewing a Manuscript

I. Referee Report Format

1. Referee comments should be written as a separate document rather than inserting comments and making corrections to the manuscript itself.
2. The length of the review can vary depending on the paper and range from one page to several pages and even longer.
3. Structure the referee report as follows:
  1. Overview: The purpose of the overview is to show that you have read and understood the paper. In one paragraph, summarize the purpose/s of the research or research questions, the type of research methodologies and approaches employed, data and sample, major findings, and conclusions. Also, provide positive feedback and mention the aspects of the paper that you liked.In a separate paragraph provide a brief critique of the research including whether the findings are valid and make a meaningful/significant contribution to advance the particular field.
  2. Major comments:
    1. Provide as many details as possible for the author to understand your comments and provide clear directions for suggested changes. Be as specific as possible.
    2. Provide comments and constructive feedback on major flaws of the paper and areas that can and should be improved. The author must address these areas of weaknesses. Major comments may relate to any aspect of the paper including the purpose/objectives of the research, literature review and where this research places in the literature, hypotheses, methods, sample and data, results, implications of results, etc.
    3. Place the paper in the context of the literature and mention the marginal contribution of the paper. After that provide your opinion about whether the contribution is substantial enough to merit publication in this journal.
    4. You can organize your comments following the sub-sections of the paper (see below the sectional guidelines).
  3. Minor comments: List non-substantive issues. They may involve things such as the structure of the paper, formatting, labeling, language, bibliography, citations, etc. Point out any clarifications on data, variables measures, etc., as well as issues relating to explanations and discussions.
  4. Recommendation: State your recommendation as supported by your comments.
    1. Accept: Accept without revisions. Please note that outright acceptance without any revisions is extremely rare.
    2. Revise and resubmit: The paper needs to be revised and should be resubmitted for consideration after making the suggested changes.
    3. Reject: Research has serious flaws and/or is not suitable for the journal. Authors don’t have an opportunity to resubmit the paper even with changes.

II. Process of Review

1. Quick read: First do a quick read of the paper to get an overall idea about it. The quick read might help you to get a first impression of the overall quality and acceptability of the paper, including its major strengths and flaws. This will also lead to your initial understanding as to whether the paper might be suitable for publication subject to any revisions or rejected. Writing very brief notes about what you have read might be helpful.
2. When reading focus on things such as the following:
  1. What are the main questions investigated in this research? Are the research questions novel, interesting and important?
  2. Does this research make a meaningful and significant contribution to literature relative to what has been already published? Does the research place well in the existing literature?
  3. Have the research questions/hypotheses well formulated and well-grounded on existing literature and/or arguments?
  4. Is the methodology sound, relevant, and appropriate for investigating research questions?
  5. Are the data and sample proper and adequate in terms of relevance to the research question? Are the sample size and length of time adequate?
  6. Has the methodology been implemented well?
  7. Are the results interesting, provide new insights and make important contributions to literature?
  8. Is the paper including tables and figures well-formatted, well-presented, and clearly written using appropriate language and tone?
3. Thorough Read: After the initial and quick review, you want to spend quality time for a comprehensive review of the paper. Please review the manuscript in detail, focusing on any flaws or problems you identified at the initial stage, and try to identify any additional flaws or areas for improvement. This may take multiple reads. Doing a thorough review will help you provide detailed comments and suggestions. Whether the paper is rejected or recommended for resubmission, the referee report needs to include detailed and specific comments that form the basis for your recommendation. While reading, add details to your notes in step 1. The structure and details that you have written will help in the next step.
4. Write the Referee Report: After the thorough review, write the review report according to the format outlined above. Make sure that the report is fair and objective, as detailed as possible and well written, and offers useful comments that will help the author to improve the paper. Authors appreciate thoughtful, constructive, and clear feedback even if the paper is rejected.
5. Read the paper again, and make sure that the points raised in your report have not been addressed by the authors. For instance, you may have been looking for a particular issue in the results section, but the authors may have addressed it as a footnote in the data section.
6. Read your report again, make it as easy to understand as you can. Make sure the tone is constructive and not overtly negative.