Chronicles of Psychology Reviewer Guidelines

The manuscript is a confidential document. Please refer to the guidelines stated in the Reviewer Roles and Responsibilities and Ethical Responsibilities of a Peer-Reviewer. Gallaudet Chronicle of Psychology uses a system of masked peer review. This means that the reviewers receive manuscript free of any direct identifying information about the author(s). However, due to small number of student in our department, in some instances reviewers might suspect the identity of the author. Regardless, the reviewers are asked to refrain from any attempts to discuss the reviewing process with others (with exception of the Editors-in-Chief and Chronicle’s Faculty Editorial Supervisor); including the assumed author of the manuscript, even after the process of reviewing is completed. Similarly, even though reviewers’ names will be listed in corresponding edition of the Chronicle, authors will not be informed about the identity of the reviewer(s) of their manuscript. Authors are also asked to refrain from any attempts to discuss details of the reviewing process of their manuscript with their assumed reviewer.

As a reviewer you will be advising the Editors-in-Chief, who make the final decision. After the decision is made, Editors will inform you about the final decision. In addition, your de-identified review feedback sheet will be passed on to the author; please do not make any comments that you do not wish for the author to see. Even if we do not accept an article, we still want to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it in the future.

Please give detailed comments (with references, whenever possible) that will both help the editors to make a decision on the article and the authors to improve it. Do be courteous and constructive in these comments and “do as you would be done unto”.

Finally, please strictly adhere to the timelines set by Editors-in-Chief. The process of publication is a long and complex procedure, and any delays in returning manuscript might result in deferral of its publication.

We suggest some points to consider below, but they are by no means an exhaustive checklist. Please use your discretion when evaluating manuscript.

• Is this an important, relevant, and useful topic for our journal?
• Does the article offer more than a standard textbook chapter on the topic?
• Does the article read well and make sense? Is any part of the article not clear?
• Are there any glaring omissions?
• Are references up to date and relevant?
• Do you think it should be published in the Chronicle?

When preparing your review feedback sheet, please keep the following guidelines in mind:

• If reviewing empirical research, is it methodologically and theoretically sound? Remember, the best written paper is not worth much if reliability or validity is compromised. On the other hand, a poorly written paper that provides an important contribution to the field should be edited or rewritten.
• Give most of your attention to the content of the manuscript rather to its language. If you notice and chose to comment on aspects of the grammar or other English issues related to the paper, your comments will be welcomed. However, “line-by-line” editing is not necessary and is above and beyond what is expected.
• Please judge the manuscript by your own standards, but remember that some authors may have less knowledge than you in various areas. Therefore, if you are suggesting additional consideration of the literature or additional statistical analyses, please provide specific information, including recommended sources.
• If you find the manuscript partly or wholly unacceptable, please give the author(s) some concrete and scientifically-based information about the reasons for your decision. Courtesy and a supportive attitude are essential if the journal and the reviewing process itself are to succeed. Remember that whether or not you choose to recommend a paper, someone has invested a lot of time, energy, money, and “self” in this project. Therefore, we encourage you to include positive as well as negative aspects of the manuscript.
• Finally, please include your final recommendation in your Peer Review Feedback Sheet. Mark one of the four recommendations – acceptance, acceptance with minor revisions, the encouragement for major revisions and resubmission, or rejection. Be aware that authors of manuscripts recommended for revision have 2 weeks to re-submit revised manuscript and you might be asked to review it again.
• Please, be aware that Gallaudet Chronicle of Psychology has a policy of rewarding their reviewers. You will receive from us an official letter of appreciation and your name will be listed as a Reviewer in the corresponding edition of the Chronicles.

Thank you again for your willingness to review for Gallaudet Chronicle of Psychology. If you have any further questions, you can contact the Editors-in-Chief.