Duties of Reviewers

Focus and Scope   Peer Review Process   Publication Frequency   Section Policies   Open Access Policy   Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement   Duties of Authors   Duties of Editor   Duties of Reviewers   Publication Fee

 

Background

Reviewers play a vital role in scholarly publishing as peer review system is indispensable in validating academic work, helps in improving the quality of published research, and increases networking possibilities within research communities. Despite some criticisms, peer review is still the major and widely accepted method for research validation.

 

Reviewers’ Duties

Reviewers assist the editors in making editorial decisions by evaluating article submissions to JET and advise the editors as to the articles' suitability for publication. The evaluation covers the quality, completeness, and accuracy of the research presented. Through the editorial communications with the author via the OJS, reviewers also assist the authors in improving the paper. Additionally, they also assist the readers by ensuring that the article cites all relevant work by other scientists and allowing them to judge the scientific merit of the study design and be able to replicate the study. Any selected expert who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

 

Reviewers’ Ethical Responsibilities

Universally, there are six ethical responsibility of reviewers: confidentiality, constructive critique, competence, impartiality and integrity, disclosure of conflict of interest, timeliness and responsiveness. Confidentiality defines that any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. Constructive critique indicates that reviewers comments should acknowledge the positive aspects of the material under review, identify negative aspects constructively, and indicate the improvements needed. Competence implies that reviewers who realize that their expertise on the subject of the manuscript is limited have a responsibility to make their degree of competence clear to the editor. Impartiality and integrity indicate that reviewers’ comments and conclusions should be based on an objective and impartial consideration of the facts, exclusive of personal or professional bias. They should also not take scientific, financial, personal, or other advantage of material available through the privileged communication of peer review, and every effort should be made to avoid even the appearance of taking advantage of information obtained through the review process. Disclosure of conflict of interest designates that if reviewers have any interest that might interfere with an objective review, they should either decline the role of reviewer or disclose their conflict of interest to the editor and ask how best to address it. Timeliness and responsiveness define that reviewers are responsible for acting promptly, adhering to the instructions for completing a review, and submitting it in a timely manner. If it is not possible to meet the deadline for the review, then the reviewer should promptly decline to perform the review.

 

Reviewer Recognition and Reward

Reviewers serve a vital role for JET’s editors and the authors who submit to our journals. JET reviewers’ efforts and dedication allow the journal to bring high-quality research to ELT community. We are committed to ensuring that our reviewers are recognized and rewarded for the valuable contributions they bring to the growing body of scientific literature. The recognition and reward program is implemented by including them in the Editorial Team in JET website and awarding Certificate of Reviewing.

 

JET’s Peer review Types

JET apply the double anonymized peer review, i.e., the reviewer identity is not made visible to the author, the author identity is not made visible to the reviewer, but both the reviewer and author identity is visible to (decision-making) editor. This type eases the reviewers to judge the manuscript fairly, keeping bias out of the equation, and both authors and reviewer benefit from some level of protection against criticism. Typically, JET solicits two reviewers to evaluate a manuscript.

 

JET’s Peer Review Structure

JET employs the “structured peer review”, whereby the reviewers judge the manuscript following a series of questions, The questions facilitate them to convey recommendations for improvement in a structured manner. While answering the questions, reviewers are expected to clearly identify what authors should consider implementing in order to satisfy these questions. If a question is not applicable or outside their expertise, then the reviewers can indicate this in their response. The reviewers can also add any other feedback not included in the questions. When they think necessary, the reviewers can put notes on the manuscript and attach it as an appendix.

 

Core questions for research-based articles

 Introduction

  1. Is the background and literature section up to date and appropriate for the topic?
  2. Have the authors emphasized the novelty and/or originality of the study? Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to better emphasize the novelty. 
  3. Does the literature section need expansion or improvement (e.g., are any key citations missing or are citations excessive)? Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to provide a broad and balanced review of current research and place their work in the context. 
  4. Are the primary (and secondary) objectives clearly stated at the end of the introduction?

 

Methods

  1. Are the study methods (including theory/applicability/modelling) reported in sufficient detail to allow for their replicability or reproducibility?
  2. Are statistical analyses, controls, sampling mechanism, and statistical reporting (e.g., P-values, CIs, effect sizes) appropriate and well described?

Results

  1. Is the results' presentation, including the number of tables and figures, appropriate to best present the study findings?
  2. Are additional sub-analyses or statistical measures needed (e.g., reporting of CIs, effect sizes, sensitivity analyses)?
  3. Does the highlights section capture the main research finding or need improving? Please provide suggestions to authors on how to better capture the main research findings.

Discussion

  1. Is the interpretation of results and study conclusions supported by the data and the study design?
  2. Does the explanation of the generalizability of the findings and/or comparison with other studies require expanding? Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the manuscript.
  3. Have the authors clearly emphasized the limitations of their study/theory/methods/ argument?

Conclusion

  1. Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable?
  2. Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

Ethical Issues

  1. Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible
  2. Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor
  3. Other ethical concerns: Has confidentiality been maintained? Has there been a violation of the accepted norms in the ethical treatment of human subjects? If so, then these should also be identified to the editor.

Note: The first five aspects (introduction - conclusion) are reported at the “for author and editor” form, while ethical issues are reported at the “for editor only” form.

 

Core questions for conceptual/review articles

  1. Do the authors explain the reason for writing a review article in this field? Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to better justify their reasons for writing.
  2. Does the review article provide a good overview of the development of the field while providing insights into the field's future development? Please list the historical developments and possible future developments that the author(s) should add or emphasize more.
  3. Do authors adequately discuss the most relevant and recent advances in the field? Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve their reference list to include the relevant topics and cover both historical and recent developments. 
  4. Is the review reported in sufficient detail to allow for its replicability and/or reproducibility (e.g., search strategies disclosed, inclusion criteria and risk of bias assessment for individual studies stated, summary methods specified)? Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the replicability/reproducibility of their review. 
  5. If the manuscript employs statistical method (e.g., meta-analysis, meta-regressions) and its reporting (e.g., P-values, 95% CIs), is it appropriate and well described? Please clearly indicate whether the review requires additional peer review by a statistician. Provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the statistical analyses, controls, sampling mechanism, or statistical reporting. 
  6. Does the review structure, flow or writing need improving (e.g., the addition of subheadings, shortening of text, reorganization of sections or moving details from one section to another, following PRISMA guidelines)? Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the review structure and flow. 
  7. Does the highlights section capture the main research finding or need improving? Please provide suggestions to authors on how to better capture the main research findings.
  8. Is violation to ethical issues detected? This includes plagiarism fraud and violation to confidentiality and ethical treatment of human subjects.

 Note: Items 1 to 7 are reported at the “for author and editor” form, while Item 8 is reported at the “for editor only” form.

Indexed in: