Peer Review Guidelines

How to become a peer reviewer?

If you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer for JCHIMP click here to register in Editorial Manager.

What is peer review?

Reviewers play a pivotal role in scholarly publishing. The peer review system exists to validate academic work, helps to improve the quality of published research, and increases networking possibilities within research communities. JCHIMP utilizes a double-blind peer review system where the reviewer and author are anonymous to each other.

How long do reviewers have to provide feedback?

Every peer reviewer will be sent a manuscript to review with a deadline to be completed 2 weeks after receiving the review request. We ask that all peer reviewers respond to the request with either an accept or decline as soon as possible. This is to ensure that the request is being received by an active account and if a reviewer declines, we can promptly assign a new reviewer.

How should the feedback be written? Or What kind of feedback is most helpful?

If you accept a request, you will have two weeks to complete and submit a review which contains 1.) your overall impression of the paper 2.) Discussion of specific areas for improvement (this can also include questions directed toward the authors), and 3.) Any other points such as confidential comments for the editors.

What happens after the review is complete?

After completing the review, reviewers can use the request email to return to the reviewer portal and upload or cut-and-paste their feedback. Reviewers also select a recommendation for the article from among the possibilities listed below:

  • Accept or Accept with minor revisions, the article’s contents have been accepted on its technical merits. This can include minor edits or suggestions for additional discussion, but the reviewer doesn’t require a re-review prior to publication.
  • Major revisions required, the authors have multiple technical and editorial issues that must be resolved to make the article acceptable for revision. Reviewers will be asked to re-review the revised article after revisions are submitted under the same procedure listed above.
  • Reject, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems. Reviewers will not be requested to re-review should the editor decide to allow the authors the opportunity to revise, unless the editor feels the authors have fully addressed the reasons for rejecting the original version of the article.

Further questions or assistance?

If you have any questions or need help please email the JCHIMP editorial team at .