Guide for referees

Before being published, paper submissions undergo a blind peer-review by at least two reviewers chosen by the managing editors from the Editorial Board. On occasion, the managing editors will reach out to scholars outside of the board, if a particular expertise is lacking. 

Reviewers should evaluate the papers with the following questions in mind: 

  • Does the paper clearly set out its main problematique or puzzle and outline research question(s) to be tackled?
  • Does the author point out why the issue under examination matters and how it is linked to the larger questions in her/his discipline?
  • Does the paper present a clear argument at the start?
  • Does the paper discuss and include relevant literature?
  • Does the author succeed in arguing his/her main points throughout the paper, or are there any logical inconsistencies?
  • Is the author clear about his/her methodology and sources (when appropriate)?    
Structure of the review

We ask that the referee begin her/his reviews with a general summary (paragraph or two) of her/his feedback, where the referee identifies the puzzle and the argument the author makes, its major strengths and weaknesses and makes a recommendation as to whether the submission should be:  

  1. Accepted without corrections
  2. Accepted with minor corrections
  3. Needs to be resubmitted with major corrections
  4. Rejected.

Following, we ask the reviewers to divide their substantive discussion into "major" and "minor" issues that the author needs to address. By major issues we mean, for instance, problems with methodology, insufficient data, any theoretical or logical inconsistencies, failure to incorporate particular set of literature or important authors. "Minor" issues relate to issues of tone, style, grammar, and failure to provide citations for particular claims, among others (reviewers should keep in mind that JUPS requires citations in Harvard referencing style). 

Generally, we ask the reviewers to provide constructive feedback that will allow the authors to address reviewer’s concerns and improve the paper. Objectivism and professionalism should guide reviewer’s comments, directed at the argument under review and not the author.