Writing Scientific Research Articles: Strategy and Steps

Referee’s Evaluation Form
General questions
Reviewer number:
  1. Is the contribution new?
  2. Is the contribution significant?
  3. Is it suitable for publication in the Journal?
  4. Is the organization acceptable?
  5. Do the methods and the treatment of results conform
      to acceptable scientific standards?
  6. Are all conclusions firmly based in the data presented?
  7. Is the length of the paper satisfactory?
  8. Are all illustrations required?
  9. Are all the figures and tables necessary?
10. Are figure legends and table titles adequate?
11. Do the title and abstract clearly indicate the content
      of the paper?
12. Are the references up to date, complete, and the journal
      titles correctly abbreviated?
13. Is the paper excellent, good, or poor?
Please use a separate sheet for your comments.
Recommendation
Accept without alteration
Accept after minor revision
Review again after major revision
Reject
Reviewer’s signature:
Date of review:
Excellent
Good
Poor
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Fig. 13.2 Example evaluation form showing typical questions to which reviewers or
referees are asked to respond.
76
Getting
your
manuscript
published
Cargill / Writing Scientific Research Articles 9781405186193_4_c13 Final Proof page 76 12.1.2009 6:43pm Compositor Name: KKavitha

---

policy of the journal, the reviewers will know the names of the authors. The
reviewers will be asked to read the manuscript and write a report about the quality
of the work, note any problems, and recommend any changes that would improve
the manuscript. The reviewer will usually be asked to complete an evaluation
form about the quality of manuscript as well, and may also be asked to recom-
mend whether the manuscript should be accepted by the journal or accepted after
revisions. The reviewer will return their written report and the evaluation form to
the editor, sometimes with annotations on the manuscript (although this is now
less common with electronic submission and review).
Journals have their own set of instructions for reviewers. These are sometimes
available on the journal’s website, or a colleague who has reviewed for the journal
may be able to show them to you. We have constructed an example referee’s
evaluation form that includes the main questions to which referees are commonly
asked to respond (see Figure 13.2). An example of a written report from a reviewer
is shown in Figure 13.3.
To: Dr AB Brown, 
Editor, Journal of…
Re: Manuscript Number…
Title…
Authors…
Dear Dr Brown,
The paper describes…. . This is a topic which would benefit from
additional work such as that described in the manuscript. However, a
major concern with the paper is the interpretation and referencing of the
literature in the Introduction and Discussion. Related to this is a lack of
integration with previous work to explain aspects of the Methods. The
paper needs re-interpretation after a thorough investigation of the 
literature. I recommend that the paper in its current form be rejected but 
believe that it may be suitable for your journal after major revision.