How to Complete a Peer Review Report

Peer Review Policies

Network Participation & Sustainability

The peer review process is dependent on each person who submits an article for peer review to also participate in the review of other articles. The sustainability of our journals is based on this model. This collaboration of authors/reviewers is what allows authors to receive academic critique of their submitted articles without requiring a submission fee or a review fee. Our approach to peer review seeks to be inclusive. Those who write for Common Ground's academic journals and/or participate as presenters at Common Ground's academic conferences also serve as peer reviewers, creating a sustainable cycle of high-quality feedback. Common Ground Research Networks uses a two way anonymous peer review system. The publisher, editors, reviewers, and authors all agree upon the standards of expected ethical behavior as based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices.

Qualifications & Reviewer Selection

Peer reviewers are selected from a list of qualified volunteers or from a list of qualified authors. Volunteer reviewers with the appropriate credentials, skills, and expertise are carefully selected by our editorial staff to review appropriately fitting assignments. Authors of article submissions which have qualified to enter the peer review process also qualify to be selected as reviewers for other articles currently in peer review. All reviewers are carefully selected by the editorial staff to properly match areas of expertise to appropriate submissions. Reviewers are assigned on the basis of subject matter and disciplinary expertise. Reviewers are encouraged to request reassignment if an article is outside their area expertise, if the article for review is too closely related to the reviewer's niche of expertise, or if the selection results in a conflict of any kind. If a peer reviewer feels unqualified to review a particular assigned article, the reviewer must notify a member of Common Ground Research Networks' editorial team to be withdrawn from the assignment.

Reviewer Responsibilities & Expectations

The peer review system is structured upon a basic principle of reciprocity. It is dependent on qualified authors reviewing article submissions from their peers. Authors participate as peer reviews out of respect for those who have reviewed (or will review) their own article submissions. Authors should expect to review at least three articles each per article submission. While authors should expect to receive three assignments, the need for reviewers within particular can vary and it is possible that fewer than three articles will be assigned. Assignments will not always be from the same Research Network as your own submission. The complete details of reviewer responsibilities are listed under the Duties of Reviewers section in the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

STEP 1: Receive a Peer Review Assignment

  • Peer review assignments are sent to reviewers by email invitation. 

STEP 2: Access the Article for Review

  • Each peer review invitation includes a blank reviewer report and the article for review (together as one file).
  • To access the file, you must download it by clicking on the link provided in your reviewer invitation email.

STEP 3: Evaluate the Article & Complete the Report

  • Read the article and make annotations using a method that clearly differentiates your text from the author's.
  • Provide suggestions and comments for each of the five evaluation levels.
  • Enter numeric scores for each of the Evaluation Criteria.

STEP 4: Return the Completed Report

  • Please return the completed report via email.
  • Each invitation will provide a specific email address where the report should be returned and a specific subject to include for the message.
  • Reviewers are given two weeks to read the article, provide comments and feedback, complete the reviewer report, and return the completed evaluation.

STEP 5: Receive Verification & Request a Reviewer Certificate

  • After a report has been received and uploaded, our staff will review the report to ensure it is complete and that it meets our standards and expectations.
    • Completed reports which meet our standards and expectations are verified by our editorial staff.
      • Incomplete or unsatisfactory reports will be returned to the reviewer for revision.
    • After verification, reviewers are notified and given the option to request a reviewer letter certifying service and contribution as a peer reviewer. 

    Did this solve your problem? Click ‘No’ to submit a support ticket