About the double-blind UJOC peer review process

Manuscripts considered by the UJOC Managing Board to be of sufficient quality and in line with the UJOC mission will be sent to two members of the UJOC Editorial Board. The editorial board editors will serve as the peer reviewers of the double-blind review for those works deemed ready for external review. Publication judgements will be based on reviewer feedback and the editorial board’s own reading of the submission materials. All reviewer feedback is then sent to the UJOC Managing Board, which will send a final decision letter to the corresponding author.

In most instances, authors can expect decisions on initial submissions within 30 days. Because manuscripts receive expert review, this time may vary. The UJOC Managing Board retains the right to make changes in accepted manuscripts that do not substantially alter meaning, as well as for grammatical, stylistic, and spatial considerations.

For peer reviewers

Members of the UJOC Editorial Board who accept a peer reviewing assignment should treat the materials they receive as confidential documents. This means reviewers shouldn’t share them with anyone, nor should they share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.

Keep the author (instead of the editor) in mind when preparing comments, as they will likely be included in the decision letter sent to the author.  Consider the following questions when preparing a peer review report:

• Examine the importance of the research question addressed in the manuscript (e.g., are objectives and justification clearly stated?).
• Assess the originality (contribution, addition of knowledge to scientific literature or field) of the manuscript.
• Clearly identify the strengths and weaknesses of the method described in the manuscript.
• Make specific useful comments on the writing of the manuscript (e.g., writing, organization, figures, etc.).
• Offer specific comments on the author’s interpretation of the results and conclusions drawn from the results.
• In case applicable, comment on the statistics (for example question if they are robust and fit-for-purpose and if the controls and sampling mechanisms are sufficient and well described).

In any case, the first step in the peer review process is to read the article. Reviewers might consider spot-checking major issues by choosing which section to read first. Below are some tips about handling specific parts of the paper:

• If the manuscript under review is reporting an experiment, check the methods section first. The following cases are considered major flaws and should be flagged:
  • Unsound methodology
  • Discredited method
  • Missing processes known to be influential on the area of reported research
  • A conclusion drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript
  • For qualitative research make sure that a systematic data analysis is presented and sufficient descriptive elements with relevant quotes from interviews are listed in addition to the author’s narrative.
• Examine any data in the form of figures, tables, or images.
  • Critical issues in research data can be related to insufficient data points, statistically non-significant variations, and unclear data tables.

After the initial review of the manuscript, it is recommended to take a break from reviewing to give one time to think. Reviewers should consider the article from their own unique perspectives.

Structuring the review report

Expert peer reviews help the managing board decide whether to publish the article. It will also aid the author and allow them to improve their manuscript. Peer reviewer should state their overall opinion and general observations of the article. Comments should be courteous and constructive and should not include any ad hominem remarks or personal details.

Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. Explain and support any judgements so that editors and authors alike can fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. Indicate whether comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data and evidence.

When making a recommendation, consider the categories the editor will likely use for classifying the article:

• Reject (explain reasoning in report)
• Accept without revision
• Revise – either major or minor (explain the revision that is required). If recommending a revision, furnish the author with a clear, sound explanation of why this is necessary.

Once the report is ready to be submitted, email the report to submissions@ujoc.org.

The final decision

The UJOC Managing Board will ultimately decides whether to accept or reject each article. The managing board will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision.

After a review has been submitted, peer reviewers will receive credit for their work in the form of a certificate of recognition and mention in the published journal. Remember that even after finalizing a review, reviewers must treat the article and any linked files or data as confidential documents.