Samuel Kern Alexander, P.hD., Illinois, U.S.
W Kane Alexander M.A., J.D. St Augustine, Florida, US
Katherine Allen, M.Arch, Rotterdam, Netherlands
Trevor Davies, Ph.D., Reading, U.K
Theodore, H. Lavit, Esq. J.D., Lebanon, Kentucky, U.S.
David Martin, Ph. D., Devon, U.K.
Annette Mountford, M.B.E., Oxfordshire, U.K.
Richard Salmon. M.A. Ph.D., Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.
Objectivity: Strive to be objective in your appraisal. Objectivity may be difficult since the manuscript you receive is on a subject related to your own interests.
Relevance: Confine your comments to an evaluation of the subject matter in the manuscript. Do not criticize the manuscript for lack of subject matter except where essential to satisfy the objectives of the study or to encourage further work.
Courtesy: Authors are naturally proud of their work and may be sensitive to sarcasm or discourteous remarks. This is particularly true of inexperienced authors. If comments are made with courtesy, they will more likely be handled by authors in a constructive manner.
Does the body of the paper fulfill the objectives outlined in the Abstract?
Are the footnotes complete and relevant to the content of the paper?
Has the author provided complete references?
Is the Review of Literature appropriate to the subject matter? Is due credit given to the contributions of others?
Were the tables, figures, quotations, appendices or other materials appropriate?
If statistical methods were used to analyze data, were they used properly?
Is the manuscript grammatically correct and stylistically consistent?
Manuscripts may be submitted in several formats: CMS, The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed., for scientific and statistical work, APA, for manuscripts in the social and behavioral sciences or AMA, for medical and health related manuscripts.
A list of reviewers is available upon request.