Instructions for reviewers

Thank you for agreeing to peer review this article, and for providing your critical expertise on this article for the Journal of Environmental Media. We ask that you refrain from using track changes on the article itself, and instead use the following template to provide comments and feedback to authors. Your comments may result in greatly improved resubmissions, or new submissions to this journal or other journals at a later date (in cases in which articles are rejected) – your contribution is invaluable to a peer review system that is critical to the quality of academic journals, and the editors and authors are grateful.

1. Do the title and the abstract reflect the content of the article adequately?
2. Is the purpose of the research stated clearly?
3. Is the significance of this research explained relative to the existing literature? Are there adequate references to other research?
4. Is the article clearly written and well organized?
5. Is the methodology sound and (if relevant) the data analysis clear?
6. Are there major typographical and syntactical errors?
7. Does the paper offer new insights and contribute to the development of the subject?
8. Is the language clear and mostly jargon-free? Would it be accessible to readers from most disciplines?
9. Does the paper offer new angles for interdisciplinarity?

After due consideration, can you please choose one of the following recommendations for the editor:

• Accept
• Accept after minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject

Please provide additional notes below (maximum 2 pages total):