Thank you for agreeing to peer review an article for the Journal of Illustration.
We ask for the review to take place in the coming weeks. You can find the review submission deadline and details in the email request we sent to you.
Process
You might be familiar with the process, but if this is a first time, the following information might be helpful. Peer review, the review of an academic article by ‘peers’ before publishing, is essential to guarantee academic rigour and integrity for any published article and is one of the most valuable ways to help a fellow academic to develop their research.
Like the majority of Intellect journals the Journal of Illustration is double-blind peer reviewed. This means there are two to three referees, chosen for their expertise within the subject area, who are asked to review the article. They are requested to comment on the clarity, originality, and scholarly merit of the submitted article. Importantly strict anonymity is accorded to both the authors and referees.
We ask you to reflect on the article, following a range of open questions given below, as well as give a recommendation. Feel free to offer additional comments and provide feedback to authors about faults in their paper and specific suggestions for improvements. You can do this in the questionnaire below, in an appendix, or if it is easier, you can use an edit tool in your text programme and place specific corrections, questions and comments directly into the text. Do make sure your editing program anonymises your comments.
*You do not have the copy edit*; this will be done later on by a dedicated copy editor. But feel free to point out glaring grammatical mistakes or typos.
Recommendation
We will ask you for a recommendation and you can choose one of the four options. This recommendation should align with the comments given. Even when articles are rejected, your comments are valuable. It may result in greatly improved re-submissions, or new submissions to this and other journals, at a later date.
Review Criteria
When you review the article, please consider the general aims and scope of the journal as well as the specific criteria of the edition. You can find these here under ‘Aims and Scope’.
If you have any further questions about the peer review process, do not hesitate to contact us via the communication option "Discussions" here in the Pubkit management system or directly email the editor or assistant who contacted you.
Next steps
Once you did the review, please send the questionnaire and additional material back via Pubkit. The editors will collate the decisions of all peer reveiwers and then send on the decision and review comments to the author. They will further ensure that the author addresses the requested amendments and assess whether this done adequately before deciding to publish.
Credits and rewards
Intellect appreciates the work that flows into every single published piece, not just by authors and editors, but also by peer reviewers. They therefore seek to recognize these efforts by offering a simple way to claim peer reviews via Publons (part of Web of Science, Endnote, Elsevier). Publons records reviewer activity as a measurable research output and ensures that peer reviewers get credit each time they complete a peer review. To see exactly how to add reviews through reviews@publons.com, please watch this video: https://youtu.be/gpM1dVsDRys
In order for you to be able to claim your review on Publons, please check that we have sent you an official confirmation for the finished peer review.
Intellect also offers journal peer reviewers a 30 per cent discount on Intellect e-books. Do e-mail georgia@intellectbooks.com and copy in the editor of the journal they reviewed for.
Thank you in advance.
Nanette Hoogslag
Principal editor
Feel free to fill this out in an email or as an attachment.
PEER REVIEW REPORT, JOURNAL OF ILLUSTRATION
Submission:
Reviewer:
I Summary of evaluation (place N/A next to items that do not apply)
Evaluation Criteria: Please rate 1 – Poor to 7 – Excellent
1. Appropriateness for this issue............................ ___
2. Contribution to the literature in the field .............. ___
3. Adequacy of literature review and references used ........ ___
4. Quality of methodological approach........................ ___
5. Organization of the paper................................. ___
6. Originality of the paper.................................. ___
7. Clarity of presentation................................... ___
II Recommendation
(mark with an X)
Accept now..................... ___
Minor revisions necessary...... ___
Major revisions necessary...... ___
Reject......................... ___
III Specific comments
Please provide detailed answers to the following questions. Please use as many lines as you wish.
1. Please describe whether or not this paper is adequate to the journal scope and objectives. Does the paper provide sufficient background information and literature review regarding its topic? Please include in your recommendations as to how the author(s) can improve this part of the paper.
2. Do you think that the presentation and discussion of issues, as well as the technical and/or methodological approach are adequate and have the expected depth? If not, please include in your recommendations as to how the author(s) can improve this part of the paper.
5. Do you think that the paper organization is adequate? Please explain how the organization could be improved.
6. What are the additional ways in which the paper could be improved?
7. Please include other comments or recommendations to authors not covered by the above questions.
IV Confidential comments to the editors
Please provide any comments or suggestions regarding your position concerning this paper. Please be specific as to whether or not you feel this article should be accepted. (These comments will not be shared with the author).