Reviewer Guideline
Averroes: Journal for Science and Religious Studies relies on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of articles that are published. All articles submitted to Averroes will be peer-reviewed. Averroes adheres to a double-blind peer-review process that is rapid and fair and also ensures the high quality of articles published. In so doing, Averroes needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turnaround time of about 4-5 weeks. Maintaining Averroes as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and the ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts. This statement is based on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Before you start
Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:
- Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review;
- Respond to the invitation as soon as you can – a delay in your decision slows down the review process, whether you agree to review or not. If you decline the invitation, provide suggestions for alternative reviewers. If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors;
- Consider the article from your perspective, and ensure that the manuscript is of high quality and original work;
- Reviewing the manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work;
- Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary reporting possible research misconduct, and informing the editor if you find the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication;
- Writing a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript, and writing a review report in Indonesian or English only. Your review report will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article;
- Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and they should not include any personal remarks or personal details, including your name. Providing insight into any deficiencies is important;
- You should explain and support your judgment. Then, editors and authors can fully understand the reasoning behind your comments;
- You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data;
- Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal, your recommendation means a lot to us.
Your review report
Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks, but not your personal details. Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.
Ethics
As a reviewer, you are not responsible for spotting ethics issues in manuscripts but with your knowledge and expertise, you are often best placed to spot cases of fraud, plagiarism or possible defamation/libel. If you have reason to suspect ethical misconduct – either deliberate or accidental – please let the publisher or the editor know as soon as possible. You can find out more about the types of publishing issues you might encounter on our research and publication ethics guidelines page.
Articles, case studies, and chapters submitted to Emerald for consideration and review should be treated as confidential, meaning that sharing this material with another person or uploading it to an AI tool or Large Language Model (LLM) for assessment or evaluation would violate the author’s confidentiality, as well as any proprietary and/or data privacy rights. This would also be the case for the peer review report itself if uploaded to an AI tool/LLM for copy-editing or copy-writing purposes, as it may contain confidential or identifiable information pertinent to the article or the author(s). There are additional concerns regarding the use of AI tools for peer review due to biases in the datasets of these models and the reliability of their ability to assess content, with the risk of generating false, flawed, or inaccurate results. As such, to maintain trust in the integrity of the published record, Emerald does not permit the use of AI tools or LLMs to assist in the review, evaluation, or decision-making process of any part of an article, case study, or chapter by either a member of a journal’s Editorial Team or a reviewer, in accordance with Averroes’s principles of peer review process. Peer reviewers are responsible for the reviews they provide and accountable for their accuracy, rigour, and validity, which, as per COPE’s position statement on AI tools, cannot be replicated by a non-human AI. Any breach of the integrity or trust of the review process as described above will be treated as peer review misconduct.
Originality
Does the article say something new and interesting? Does it add to the body of knowledge? Is the research question an important one? How does the manuscript compare to the most highly-cited or downloaded papers in the field? Tools such as Web of Science or Scopus can help answer these questions. If the research has been covered previously, forward any relevant references to the editor.
Layout and format
Each journal’s author guidelines contain instructions on manuscript presentation and authors are expected to follow these closely. If they don’t, and the editor hasn’t mentioned the omission in their invitation to review, you should flag the issue with the editor or highlight it in your review report. If the paper is particularly original or interesting, the editor may wait until they have decided to accept it before asking the author to reformat.
Title
Does it clearly describe the article and include the most important keywords? (Consider how you search for research articles.) Does it demonstrate the significance of the research and make sense?
Structured abstract
Have all mandatory fields been completed? Does the abstract accurately reflect the content of the article?
Introduction
Does this describe what the author hoped to achieve and clearly articulate the research question? Has the author provided a summary of the current research literature to provide context? Is it clear how this is being challenged or built upon? Are there any important works that have been omitted?
Methodology
Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Does the article outline the procedures followed? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Is there sufficient information available for you to replicate the research? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
Statistics
These should be checked carefully – errors are common.
Results
This is where the author should explain their findings. Are results presented clearly? You should consider the merits and appropriateness of the author’s analysis.
Conclusion/discussion
Are the claims in this section reasonable and supported by the results? Are the findings consistent with the author’s expectations? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the author explain how the research has added to the body of knowledge?
Graphics and tables
Where these are included, please check the contents and, if possible, make suggestions for improvements. Do the figures and tables inform the reader? Are they an important part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they presented consistently (e.g. in the same format throughout)?
Language
Does poor use of English make it difficult to follow the author’s argument? If this is the case, it’s not up to you to edit the text. Mention the problem in your review report and the editor may decide to refer the author to editing services, for example, Editage, a company we partner with.
Implications for research
Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be applied;
- In practice: What's the economic and commercial impact?
- In teaching?
- To influence public policy?
- In research: Does it contribute to the body of knowledge?
- For society: Is it influencing public attitudes or affecting quality of life?
Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?
Quality of communication
Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal’s readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms and so on?
Make your recommendation
You will make an overall recommendation to the editor or publisher to complete your review and they will take this into account when they make their decision. The most common recommendation criteria are:
Revisions
Minor revisions
This varies from journal to journal. However, minor revisions often require the author to make relatively small adjustments to the paper, which don’t take much time. They might be related to author guideline requirements, e.g. a slight reduction in word count; formatting changes, such as the labelling of tables or figures; further evidence of an understanding of the research literature in the field; or a slight elaboration on the research findings.
Major revisions
Major revisions often require the author to make more significant improvements, the type which take weeks or even months, rather than days. Authors may be asked to address flaws in the methodology; collect more data; conduct a more thorough analysis; or even adjust the research question to ensure the paper contributes something truly original to the body of work.