A manuscript is a document that is submitted to a publisher for publication as a book, article, or other type of written work. A journal article is a piece of writing that is published in a scholarly journal.

To be indexed, the scholarly journal must have been examined by experts in the field as well as independent scholars who are not affiliated with the authors’ institution(s). The criterion for inclusion can differ from one journal to another.

Reviewers are supposed to provide authors with constructive feedback. They should discuss what is good about the manuscript, i.e., its strengths, and how it could be improved, i.e., its weaknesses. As far as possible, reviewers should refrain from passing judgment on how good or awful they believe the work is, instead focusing on what areas of content are well implemented and which could use better. When reviewing a manuscript, I tend to follow the three-step procedure described below.

First, I read the entire manuscript and jot down any remarks that come to mind as a result of the reading. Following that, I generate questions regarding the language, such as what appears to be confusing or unclear, and whether sections of the text may be enhanced or expanded upon. Aspects I focus on include the manuscript’s: structure and content; novelty, originality, and empirical validity; use of suitable methodology; and clarity and precision of communication. Finally, I draft comments in the form of questions and editing suggestions for the authors but also keeping in mind the intended audience of the manuscript.

Peer review is an important aspect of the scholarly process since it ensures that published work meets standards of quality and originality. However, peer review takes time and can be difficult to implement on a large scale.

If you wish to learn more about reviewing scholarly publications, please contact me or leave a comment below. Also, if you are an author and you need a reviewer for your manuscript, you are welcome to get in touch.