Thank you for supporting SJARD. Peer reviewers are essential to the quality and credibility of the journal.
Before you accept
- Is the manuscript within your area of expertise?
- Can you complete the review by the due date? If you need more time, please tell the editor.
- Do you have any conflict of interest — for example, you recognise the work as that of a close colleague, student or competitor? If so, please decline.
Writing your review
The online review form asks you to score the manuscript on five criteria — originality, methodology, relevance, presentation and references — and to make a recommendation. Your comments to the authors should:
- Summarise the manuscript’s aims and main findings in two or three sentences.
- Identify its strengths and its most important weaknesses.
- Give specific, numbered suggestions for improvement, with page or line references where possible.
- Check that the manuscript follows the author guidelines, including the 150-word abstract and APA referencing.
- Be courteous and constructive, and avoid any remark that could reveal your identity.
Use the confidential comments to the editor for concerns about ethics, plagiarism or suitability that you do not wish to share with the authors.
Recommendations
- Accept as is — ready for publication with no or trivial changes.
- Minor revision — sound, needing limited changes that the editor can check.
- Major revision — potentially publishable, but needing substantial work and probably re-review.
- Reject — fundamental flaws, insufficient contribution, or outside the scope of the journal.
Confidentiality
Do not share the manuscript, discuss it with others, or upload it to any AI tool. Destroy your copies once the review is complete.
Last updated 27 September 2026