Reviewer Guidelines

  • Consider the following when reviewing:
    • What is the main topic addressed by the research? Is it relevant and important?
    • Does this research fit the mission and values of PSJM?
    • Is the topic original? Has the data presented been published before? (consider a quick literature review if unaware)
    • Is the paper generally well-organized? Are there grammatical errors? Is it clear and easy to read?
    • Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence of the study/case performed?
    • What do the tables/figures add to the paper?
  • Look out for major flaws:
    • Conclusions contraindicates study/case evidence
    • Ignorance of a strong bias or a clear hole in the study design that is evidently circumventing an important part of the study

Please format as the following on the PSJM Website:

  • Review
    • For author and editor: Please list your comments that will be transmitted to both the editor board and the authors of the submission
      • A paragraph generally discussing the findings of the submission and what the author has performed. In this paragraph, please summarize your concerns/comments regarding the submission in a few lines – including your final decision (accept without revision, accept with revisions, decline for submission, etc.)
      • Please list the larger/more general concerns of the submission in number list form.
        • A few lines regarding each concern is preferred to help the authors best understand your concerns.
        • Give ample examples/quotes directly from the submission to provide clarity.
        • Support your concerns with evidence from literature that the author has cited.
        • Provide recommendations to the author(s) of how they can consider improving their submission
      • Under this, please consider a line by line analysis with headers for Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion/Conclusion. Use this area for minor errors, such as clarifications, additions of text, removal of text, rewording, and small questions. Provide
        • Provide the line/table/figure number and quote the text that is of concern. Be clear in your statement to the author to ensure that the author is able to understand your question/direction/concern
    • For editor: Please list any concerns that will ONLY be transmitted to the editor and will not be shown to the authors. Examples of what can go under here are:
      • Request for feedback on review formatting
      • Clarifying any remarks made in the “author and editor” box
      • Other concerns that you may want to convey to the editors that cannot otherwise be presented to the authors of the submission
  • Upload
    • Reviewer Files
      • Please refrain from making edits on the Word Document files. Often when using the revision feature on the Word Document, the reviewers name appears. This will compromise the blind review process. Please comment regarding revisions in the "For author and editor" box using line numbers.
      • Review Discussions
        • This is a forum where discussions can be had to reduce the formal process of a full new submission. Quick questions may be asked here to clarify remarks that were made in the review. This will allow for a quicker process
  • Recommendation
    • Please make a recommendation based on your review of the paper. The choices are as follows:
      • Accept Submission: Make this recommendation if you believe that the submission is good as-is and no revisions are necessary. The submission will move to copyediting. Few submissions fall in this category.
      • Revisions Required: Make this recommendation if you believe that the submission can be accepted once the remarks/modifications made in the review are either addressed or corrected. Submissions in this category typically go on to be accepted if the authors are able to make necessary changes.
      • Resubmit for Review: Make this recommendation if you believe the that the submission has major flaws that will require that the author to make large-scale changes. These changes require the author to perform large scale statistical analyses, collect more data, etc. Submissions in this category are considered to be declined for acceptance with potential of acceptance if re-submitted for another round of peer-review.
      • Resubmit Elsewhere: Make this recommendation if you believe that the submission is not a good fit for the focus and scope of this journal. Submissions in this category are considered to be rejected as they do not align well with the values of the journal. This may or may not be due to the validity and quality of the submission.
      • Decline Submission: Make this recommendation if you believe that the submission has too many weaknesses/flaws to be accepted to the journal. This may include a submission that fails to present original research or a poor study design. Submissions in this category will not be considered for acceptance, even if re-submitted.
      • See Comments: Make this “recommendation” if none of the above recommendations make sense. You can then leave a comment detailing exactly what your recommendation is regarding the submission.