Manuscripts 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.

When you agree to become a reviewer we will provide you with a checklist to consider during their review and we also provide a structured form to house the feedback. The peer-review process is double blind and therefore all comments are completely confidential.

When reviewing a manuscript, we ask that each reviewer consider the research question and quality including:

 - Why is the paper important?
- Is the work original, or does it add to what is already published in research?
- if there is a research questions and clear message?
- Is the paper 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 manuscript including:

- Are the title and abstract appropriate for the paper?
- Is the research question clearly defined and appropriately answered?
- Is the overall design of the study and description of the method clear and robust?
- Does the paper answer the research question?
- Are the tables, images, links or other additional data useful and relevant?
- Are all references present and complete?
- Are the research question interpretation and conclusion warranted and focused on the data?

Interested in supporting the journal and student researchers?
If you're an academic and keen to support the journal by becoming a reviewer
Contact the Reinvention journal team: reinventionjournal@warwick.ac.uk