Reviewers' Information Pack - (Page 16) Reviewers’ Information Pack Supporting the Peer Review Process 7. A BRIEF GUIDE TO REVIEWING 7.4. Communicating Your Report to the Editor Once you have completed your evaluation of the article the next step is to write up your report. If it looks like you might miss your deadline, let the editor know. Some journals may request that you complete a form checking various points, others will request an overview of your remarks. Either way, it is helpful to provide a quick summary of the article at the top of your report. It serves the dual purpose of reminding the editor of the details of the report and also reassuring the author and editor that you understood the article. The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section. Commentary should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks. Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are better able to understand the basis of the comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or reflected by data. When you make a recommendation regarding an article, it is worth considering the categories an editor will likely use for the classifying the article: a) Rejected due to poor quality, or out of scope b) Accept without revision c) Accept but needs revision (either major or minor) In the latter case, clearly identify what revision is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article. 16 www.elsevier.com/reviewers http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.