Peer Reviewer Guidelines
Thank you for agreeing to act as peer reviewer for Dialogue. In this document you will find all the relevant information to make the review process smooth, effective, and time-efficient. However, if you have any further question, please do not hesitate to contact us at dialogue.polsis [@] uq.edu.au.
Articles are peer-reviewed by a maximum of two anonymous reviewers, who are deemed to have enough expertise on the topic and/or relevant literature to assess its quality and merits.
At Dialogue we are committed to timely publications, by which we intend both relevant topics and a reasonable amount of time between submission and publication. Ideally we would like to receive the article back from the reviewer within 3-4 weeks. However, should you need more time, please do not hesitate to say so. We thank you for taking the time to contribute as a reviewer.
Starting from your feedback and evaluation of the article, there are three possible outcomes that you can give:
- Accept with no/minor changes – the article requires no or only minor changes, the argument is sound and well developed, the structure is in place, and appropriate evidence is provided.
- Revise and resubmit – the article needs re-work because the structure, the argument, and/or the evidence are not ready for publication, but there are good possibilities that the author can improve them without rewriting the paper.
- Reject – to be published the article would need substantial re-work. In this case, we would invite the author to consider a re-write, if they are still interested in publishing with Dialogue.
In case of revise and resubmit, the article will be sent back to the author for revision, then back to you to approve (or not) whether the author has addressed your comments. Ideally, we would expect you to send the article back to us within 2 weeks approving or not the author’s changes to their draft.
Tips for Reviewing and Reporting
- Please avoid personal opinions: the argument has to be evaluated not according to whether it conforms to your world view, but on the basis that it is well developed and supported with a sound methodology (methods and theoretical framework). If the article is substantiated with evidence, is well written, and is accessible, then it should be acknowledged.
- Please provide constructive feedback: the task of the reviewer is to provide constructive feedback. Please be specific with your criticism, so that the author knows exactly what you refer to.
- The author will read you review: please be professional, detailed, and concise in your comments.
- Reviewers are anonymous: therefore please ensure that there are no identifying comments in your feedback.
If you have any questions please contact us.