JeSLIB Reviewer Guidelines
This journal uses an anonymous peer review process, which means that the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.
Please be as specific and considerate as possible. The more detail you can provide, the more help you will be to the author(s).
When writing your review, be careful to omit any references to yourself, and if necessary, change Word’s Preferences/Personal Settings/User Information to an anonymous identification such as Anon, R2, etc. When an editorial decision is reached for the article, your review will be made available to the author(s) exactly as you submit it. Your identity will be hidden, of course.
Note that in addition to these comments that will go back to the author(s), you will also have the opportunity when you submit your review to include confidential comments which only editors will see.
Peer Review Code of Ethics
The Journal of eScience Librarianship adheres to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Sections of the Review Form
Scope, Objectives, Content: Is the paper in scope for the journal and does it relate to an aspect of the discipline that is of interest to its readers? Is the topic important to the discipline of data management and related fields, or is it of low priority?
Organization: Does the paper proceed logically? A statement of the problem, the objectives, the methodology, findings and conclusion are usually required for a research paper. A new program, an application of technology, or a solution for a common problem usually entails description and evaluation.
Methodology, Approach, References, Conclusions: The methodology for data gathering and analysis should be appropriate for the problem addressed. Inferences from data should be sound -- the author should not reach undue conclusions. Not all papers will entail research methodology, especially those which describe procedures or those which are historical or narrative in nature. Is the program, application, or solution adequately described? Is the paper factually accurate? Is it clear that the author knows or has investigated previous work in the subject of the paper? Does the author(s)/presenter(s) explain how the results can be generalized to other settings or research areas?
Figures, Tables, Charts: Please comment on the author’s use of tables, charts, and figures, including the quality of the formatting and presentation. How useful is data represented with visuals (graphs, charts, tables, etc.)? Are the visuals relevant in terms of illustrating the arguments and supporting the evidential base?
Data Files: If data files are included in the manuscript (links, footnotes, etc.) please pay attention to the following: Is the data accessible? Are the files consistent in format and content description? Is the data referenced in the manuscript the data you are reviewing? Is the data format, file structure and arrangement of data relevant to the research? Does the data used make sense and is consistent within the context of the manuscript? See PLOS’ A Reviewer’s Quick Guide to Assessing Open Datasets.
Writing Style: Is the text well written? Please indicate whether there are problems with expression, with grammar and with general style. Do not take the time to copy edit. JeSLIB provides copy-editing services that will be handled later in the process. However, general comments pointing out problems with style or format are useful.
Other Comments: Provide comments and suggestions for improvement, if required, with additional references or possible clarification of arguments, etc.
Completing the review: Once the review is completed, reviewers will be asked to recommend one of the following options:
- Accept without revisions
- Minor revisions required
- Major revisions required
Questions? Please contact Regina Fisher Raboin, Editor-in-Chief.
Become a Reviewer
Are you interested in becoming a peer reviewer for JeSLIB? Fill out our Become a Reviewer form!