All papers accepted by Reinvention: an International Journal of Undergraduate Research will be subject to double-blind peer review.
If you agree to act as a reviewer for one of the papers for our journal, we hope this page will be useful in indicating what we will ask of you during the review process. We also hope that this page will be useful to students who wish to submit work to the journal since it indicates the criteria on which their paper will be judged.
All of the papers submitted to the journal are written by undergraduate students. Our aim for the journal is that it showcases the work of undergraduate students across all disciplines and we want to publish work that is of an equal standard to that published in existing academic journals. As such we ask that all peer reviewers assess the papers as they would a paper for an academic journal. We do however ask that the feedback the reviewers give on the paper be as detailed as possible so that the student is absolutely clear about the work they need to do to get their paper to a publishable standard or so that they have clear, constructive feedback explaining why their paper has been rejected.
We have put together a checklist for reviewers to consider during their review and we also provide a structured form to house the feedback from each reviewer. The peer-review process is double blind and therefore all comments are completely confidential. Within the Reviewer's Checklist we ask that each reviewer considers a number of criteria. We ask the reviewers to consider if the paper is important, if the work is original and adds to what is already in the published literature, if there is a clear message, if the paper is clearly presented and if there is good methodological integrity, including appropriate consideration of ethics. We also ask reviewers to look at the detail of the paper including the appropriateness of the title and abstract, whether the research question is clearly defined and appropriately answered, the overall design of the study and description of method and whether or not the paper answers the research question. Finally the reviewers are asked to look at the usefulness and relevance of any tables, images, links or other additional data, to ensure that all references are present and complete and that the interpretation and conclusions are warranted by and focused on the data.
Reinvention Journal Team, firstname.lastname@example.org