Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are an important component to the success of Αρετή (Arete) Journal of Excellence in Global Leadership.  The editorial team recognizes the importance of your contribution and thank you.  The review form should be used to guide your peer review; however, the editorial staff welcomes track changes on the manuscript. The peer review form is designed to quickly assess the manuscript.  Please review COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Currently, the journal accepts three types of submissions: articles, case studies, and critical essays & perspectives.  Articles are double-blind peer review; whereas case studies and critical essay & perspective submissions are single-blind peer review. (In some cases, case studies and perspectives are double-blind).   Double-blind means that neither the reviewer or the author know the others identity.  Single-blind peer review means the reviewer may know the identify of the author. However, the author does not know the identity of the reviewer.  The editorial team and the OJS system will take steps to anonymize the submissions; however, please let the editorial team know if you discover an issue we overlooked as well as determine if we need to contact another reviewer. 

Articles are assessed for academic writing style, language quality, clarity, rigor, analysis, validity, and impact on Global Leadership.  Case studies are assessed for using the same criteria with some additional aspects on teaching and learning in Global Leadership (i.e. practical learning outcomes).  Critical essays & perspectives are assessed using the same criteria with some additional aspects that share promising practices, new models, changing attitudes/interpretations, and promotes further debate. 

Guidelines for reviewing

Overall, evaluate the article:

  1. Does the author use an “academic writing style”? You can do this from first
    skimming through the manuscript. Look for specific references to the field or discipline.  Does the author avoid jargon and colloquialisms?  Does the author avoid generalizations? If applicable, does the results section tell a story with an appropriate number of tables and figures that are needed to tell the story?
  2. Does the article have a good language quality? The editorial team does not expect you to be a copy editor; however, does the author use active voice instead of passive voice?  Is it free from distracting grammar or mechanical errors?  Is the author sensitive to labels and assumptions that might violate bias-free inclusive language?
  3. Does the author demonstrate clarity? For example, is it clear what is already known about this topic?  Is the research appropriate and justified based on what is already written about the topic? Is it clear what the author wants to find out? Can you trace the logic consistently from the opening paragraph to the conclusion? Are the results presented in a way that best emphasizes the findings? If reviewing a case study, do the case questions meet the learning outcomes?  Are figures, infographics, or tables easy to read?
  4. Does the author demonstrate rigor? For example, does the author overlook literature that should be included? Is the methodology appropriate, adequate, and comparable to other research on this topic?  How well does the researcher(s) set a foundation to state the problem?  If applicable, are the results shown both statistically and substantively meaningful clearly identifying what the data will support? 
  5. Does the author demonstrate good [and ethical] analysis? For example, do the authors clearly describe their research strategies? Did the authors receive appropriate ethical approval as needed to conduct the study? If applicable, is the sample data anonymized appropriately?  If a critical essay & perspective submission, did the authors compare different attitudes and expectations?
  6. Does the author demonstrate validity? Is there enough detail to replicate this study? Do they present sufficient detail from the collected data to measure in terms of external and internal validity? Would other methods be more feasible or practical?  Do the authors address any limitation of the study? If a critical essay & perspective, does the author show promising practices, new models, or changing attitudes that foster further debate?
  7. Does the author demonstrate an impact on Global Leadership? There are seven areas that should be considered.
    1. Global: Does the submission incorporate a worldview? Does the submission contribute to global society?
    2. Cross-disciplinary: Do the initiatives introduced consider best practices?  Do the authors describe a concept that could be applied in more than one branch of knowledge?
    3. Relevance: Does the content reflect the current state or anticipated future state of the field of study?
    4. Thought-provoking: Does the submission encourage academic stimulation and further inquiry?
    5. Innovativeness: Does the submission implement a dynamic synergy of new ideas?
    6. Cultural Awareness: Does the submission raise awareness of cultural intelligence and encourage a global mindset?
    7. Diversity: Does the submission embrace equality and recognize diverse initiatives?

 

Your final conclusion:

Should the submission be:

  1. accepted
  2. accept with revisions (with an indication that you are willing to review it after revisions)
  3. resubmit for review (topic is sound, but a complete revision needed)
  4. resubmit elsewhere (you do not think the manuscript fits the journal
  5. reject
  6. see comments (use this category if you are not sure which action is appropriate and want to explain to the editorial team some specific issues)

 

What characterizes a Good Review?

  • A good review is on time.
  • A good review identifies both strengths and weaknesses.
  • A good review offers concrete suggestions for improvements.
  • A good review is supportive, constructive, thoughtful, and fair.
  • A good review will acknowledge any bias they bring to the process.
  • A good reviewer justifies their conclusion.
  • A good reviewer is respectful.

What characterizes a Bad Review?

  • A bad review focuses on weaknesses but with no specific suggestion for improvement.
  • A bad review is superficial.
  • A bad reviewer sends mixed signals.
  • A bad review concentrates on only selected sections.
  • A bad review does not acknowledge bias brought to the process.
  • A bad review offers citations of their own work.

----------------------

If you discover you have a competing interest or conflict of interest, please let the editorial team know.  A competing interest can be financial or non-financial in nature.