HORIZONS FOR SUSTAINABILITY
-Referees' Guide-

Peer Review Guide

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is a very important stage in the academic publishing process; it is the core of the entire system.

It serves two key purposes: it acts as a filter to ensure that only quality research is published, and it helps improve the quality of the submitted research.

Conducting the Review

Peer review is conducted confidentially; the article you are asked to review must not be shared with third parties. Set aside 2–3 hours to complete the review. It is better to evaluate the article in one sitting rather than in bits and pieces with interruptions.

Typically, you will assess the article based on the following aspects:

1. Originality

  • Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to justify publication?

  • Is the research important?

  • Does the article meet the journal’s standards?

2. Structure

  • Is the article clearly presented?

  • Are all key components present: abstract, keywords, JEL classification, introduction, methodology, results, conclusion, references?

Review each element:

  • Title: Does it clearly describe the article?

  • Abstract: Does it reflect the content accurately?

  • Introduction: Does it clearly state what the author aims to achieve and outline the research problem? Usually, the introduction is 1–2 paragraphs, summarizing relevant research for context, explaining what findings are being challenged or extended, and outlining the general approach or method.

  • Methodology: Is it appropriate? Does it clearly explain how data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the research question? Is there enough information for the reader to understand the approach? Are the procedures logically organized? If new methods are used, are they explained in detail? Was the sample appropriate? Were materials and equipment adequately described? Are the types of data clearly indicated? Were measurements accurately reported?

  • Results: The author should clearly state what was discovered. Are the results presented logically? Was an appropriate analysis performed? Are statistics correct?

  • Conclusion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results? Do they seem reasonable? Do the authors explain how their results relate to previous expectations and studies? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research advances scientific knowledge?

  • Figures and Tables: Do they convey relevant information to the reader? Are they essential to the article? Do they accurately represent the data? Are they well-designed and consistent (e.g., consistent bar widths in graphs, logical axis scales)?

3. Previous Research

  • If the article builds on previous research, are those works properly cited?

  • Are there any important works that were omitted?

  • Are the references accurate?

4. Language

If the article contains numerous spelling or grammar mistakes, you are not expected to correct the language. Inform the editor of the poor quality, allowing them to make the appropriate decision. Language correction is not the reviewer’s responsibility.

5. Ethical Issues

  • Plagiarism: If you suspect the article is a substantial copy of previous work(s), notify the editor and cite the suspected sources.

  • Fraud: Although difficult to detect, if you believe results may be fraudulent, explain your reasoning to the editor.

  • Other ethical concerns: Consider whether confidentiality has been maintained when using data not intended for public access, whether necessary permissions and acknowledgements are in place, and whether ethical standards for the treatment of humans or animals have been respected.

Submitting the Report

Once you have completed your evaluation, the next step is to write and submit your report to the editor.

Your report should include the key elements of your review, following the points outlined above. When writing comments, be constructive and respectful. Avoid making personal remarks about the author.

Understanding any shortcomings is essential. Explain and justify your opinion so that both the editor and the authors understand the reasoning behind your comments. Also indicate whether your comments reflect a personal opinion or are supported by data.

When making your final recommendation, consider the categories the editor will use to classify the article:

a. Rejection due to poor quality or out of scope
b. Acceptance without revision
c. Acceptance with revisions (either minor or major)

If you believe revisions are needed, clearly indicate what kind and let the editor know whether you are willing to review the revised version.

To facilitate the review process and enable standardized feedback collection, it is recommended to use an operational review form, as shown below. This will also assist in writing the final report.

Operational Review Form Template

TITLE

  • Does the title clearly express the content of the article?
  • Is the title phrased in a way that is relevant and suggestive of the journal’s proposed theme?

ABSTRACT

  • Is the abstract sufficiently informative?
  • Does the abstract describe the research and the results?

Does the abstract provide a good overview of the article’s main message?

INTRODUCTION

  • Is the connection with current concerns in the field clearly highlighted?
  • Are the research objectives adequately stated?
  • Is the contribution of the research to the development of theory and/or the improvement of engineering practice convincingly argued?

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

  • Is the source and authorship of the research methods used clearly stated?
  • Are the methods used validated/recognized?
  • Are the data and statistics used credible?

RESEARCH/INVESTIGATION AND RESULTS

  • Are the research results correctly identified and clearly presented?
  • Are all relevant connections with the work/research of others properly stated?
  • Is the literature cited in support of the research sufficiently comprehensive and up-to-date?
  • Are interpretative errors adequately avoided?
  • Are assumptions and speculations sufficiently avoided?

CONCLUSIONS

  • Are the conclusions that logically follow from the work clearly stated?
  • Are erroneous or unjustified interpretations avoided in the formulation of the conclusions?
  • Are overly general or biased conclusions avoided?

REFERENCES

  • Are the references up to date?
  • Are the references correctly cited in the text of the paper?
  • Are the references correctly indexed and listed in the bibliography?

TABLES

  • Are the tables in the paper complete, including, among other things, the indication of units of measurement, source citation, and clarification of any differences?
  • Are the tables correctly titled and numbered?
  • Are the tables and the data contained in them properly utilized and interpreted in the text of the paper?
  • Are the tables well-proportioned and aesthetically placed within the text of the paper?

GRAPHS AND FIGURES

  • Are the graphs and figures in the paper illustrative of the phenomena discussed and correctly constructed?
  • Are the tables correctly titled and numbered?
  • Are the graphs and figures correctly titled and numbered?
  • Are the graphs and figures properly utilized and interpreted in the text?
  • Are the graphs and figures proportionate and aesthetically placed within the text of the paper?

GENERAL COMMENTS

  • Is the topic important and appropriately addressed?
  • Is there a new and valuable idea?
  • Does the grammar and spelling require more attention?
  • Is the field of interest limited?
  • Are the data lacking credibility or analyzed incorrectly?
  • Is the approach inappropriate or incorrect?
  • Is there repetition of established facts?
  • Is the approach biased and unconvincing?

RECOMANDATIONS

It is recommended

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………………….