Peer Review Process

  • Journals must have a peer review policy and articles accepted for publication in the journal must be peer reviewed.
  • Editors must carefully examine submitted manuscripts so that they are sent to appropriately selected reviewers.
  • A paper to be considered for publication should ideally be sent to at least two reviewers.
  • Peer reviewers should preferably be scholars who have not previously co-published with the author(s).
  • Peer reviewers must be carefully selected so that they provide helpful critique of a manuscript’s content in order to improve it. They must have expertise and competency in the topic.
  • It is recommended that the peer-review process be conducted ‘double blind’, that is, the author(s) does not know who the reviewers are and vice versa. A reviewer should not know who the other reviewers are. Double blind peer review is appropriate where academic fields are small. Other models of peer review are not excluded and the journal should adopt the method that is most suited for the journal, its disciplinary area(s) and its research community.
  • The reviewer must declare any potential or real conflict of interest before the review is submitted and must be free of known bias in relation to the subject matter.
  • Special statistical and/or mathematical review can be sought, if needed.
  • Reviewer reports are carefully assessed by the editor to decide whether they constitute the basis for the publication of the article in question, or whether publication should follow if certain improvements are effected and/or further work done and reported on; or whether the paper should be rejected.
  • Editors reserve the right to reject papers without review if they are not appropriate for the journal concerned. In addition, studies that are fundamentally flawed may also be rejected without review. In both cases, editors must communicate clearly the reason for refusals.
  • All peer reports and substantive correspondence must be retained within a well-designed record system for possible later scrutiny.
  • It is recommended that a list of peer reviewers used by a journal be updated and published at least once a year; ideally, this would include the number of articles that were reviewed by each listed reviewer.
  • Editors should seriously consider not retaining reviewers who default on their obligations or who take an inappropriately long time to complete reviews.
  • The journal’s peer review practice activities should be monitored regularly to ensure effectiveness.
  • The journal’s peer review policy and process must be published on its website.
  • Part of a postgraduate thesis or dissertation submitted for publication in a scholarly journal is subject to the same peer review procedures as all other manuscripts.
  • Editors should not act as reviewers for the papers they are handling.


The reviewers must especially:

  • Scrutinise the research methodology and results in terms of consistency, quality of interpretation and likely reproducibility.
  • Identify gaps that could be explored to enhance the interpretability and strength of the findings and/or insights.
  • Suggest how the paper can be improved. Reviewers should always report in writing, with clear recommendations for acceptance of the paper in question, with or without revision, or rejection, as the case may be.
  • Assess the originality of references of previously published studies and ensure that the work is positioned in the relevant field.
  • Contest conclusions when they are not justified by the results or arguments presented.


Resources: Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE)