Reviewers must adhere to the following guidelines:

1. All manuscripts are reviewed fairly based on the intellectual content of the paper regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry, or political values of the authors.
2. Any observed conflict of interest during the review must be communicated to the editor.
3. All information pertaining to the manuscript is kept confidential.
4. Any information that may be the reason for a publication rejection must be communicated to the Editor.
5. The duty of confidentiality in the assessment of a manuscript must be maintained by expert reviewers, and this extends to reviewers’ colleagues who may be asked (with the editor’s permission) to give opinions on specific sections.
6. Submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied.
7. Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations unless they have the authors’ permission.
8. Reviewers should provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased, and justifiable reports.
9. Reviewers assigned to an article will comment on the following items:

• • The importance, originality, and timeliness of the study
  • Strengths and weaknesses of the study design and data analysis for research papers or the analysis and commentary for essays
  • Writing, organization, and presentation
  • The degree to which the findings justify the conclusion
  • The article's relevance, usefulness, and comprehensibility for the Journal’s target audience.

Initial Review

1. Read the abstract to be sure that you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to say no to reviewing an article if there is athe good reason.
2. Read information provided by the journal for reviewers so you will know: a) The type of manuscript (e.g., a review article, technical note, original research) and the journal’s expectations/parameters for that type of manuscript.; b) Other journal requirements that the manuscript must meet (e.g., length, citation style).
3. Know the journal’s scope and mission to make sure that the topic of the paper fits in the scope.
4. Ready? Read through entire manuscript initially to see if the paper is worth publishing- only make a few notes about major problems if such exist: a) Is the question of interest sound and significant?; b) Was the design and/or method used adequately or fatally flawed? (for original research papers); c) Were the results substantial enough to consider publishable (or were only two or so variables presented or resulted so flawed as to render the paper unpublishable)?
5. What is your initial impression? If the paper is: a) Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, interesting, and new; sound methodology used; results were well presented; discussion well formulated with Interpretations based on sound science reasoning, etc., with only minor comments/questions, move directly to writing up review; b) Fatally flawed so you will have to reject it: move directly to writing up review; c) A mixture somewhere in the range of “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you’re unsure if it should be rejected yet or not: It may be a worthy paper, but there are major concerns that would need to be addressed.

 Full-Content Review

1. Writing: Is the manuscript easy to follow, that is, has a logical progression and evident organization?
2. Is the manuscript concise and understandable? Any parts that should be reduced,
3. Eliminated/expanded/added?
4. Note if there are major problems with mechanics: grammar, punctuation, spelling. (If just a few places aren’t worded well or correctly, make a note to tell the author the specific places. If there are consistent problems throughout, only select an example or two. Don’t try and edit the whole thing).
5. Abbreviations: Used judiciously and composed so the reader won’t have trouble remembering what an abbreviation represents.
6. Follows style, format, and other rules of the journal.
7. Citations are provided when providing evidence-based information from outside sources.