Reviewer Guidelines

Review Steps

Notify the submission's editor as to whether you will undertake the review.
If you are going to do the review, consult Reviewer Guidelines.
Click on file names to download and review (on screen or by printing) the files associated with this submission.
Click on icon to fill in the review form.
In addition, you can upload files for the editor and/or author to consult.

Reviewer Guidelines

All papers submitted to Eufoni undergo a rigorous peer-review to ensure that they not only fit into the journal's scope but also meet academic quality and novelty to appeal to our readers. As a reviewer, you will be required to objectively uphold this standard.

These guidelines will help you understand your responsibilities as a reviewer and your ethical obligations to both the journal and the authors. You will also be introduced to what you should be looking for in a manuscript, so that your review will be consistent as requested by the journal. This is particularly important as all articles submitted to Eufoni should be evaluated on the same field.

Your responsibilities as a reviewer

As a reviewer, you will be responsible for reading the manuscript and evaluating its suitability for publication in Eufoni along with its scientific quality. You will be expected to provide constructive, impartial, unambiguous, and honest feedback to the authors, with the purpose of encouraging them to improve their manuscript.

In accordance with its commitment to the development of young scientists, Eufoni aims to see all authors who submit to the journal—regardless of whether they are accepted—improve both as academic writers and researchers. As such, reviewers’ comments that in any way denigrate or discourage an author from re-submitting to this or another journal will not be tolerated. Reviewers should be critical but not detrimental to accurate scientific communication.

Things to consider before agreeing to review a manuscript

Before you agree to review a manuscript, you should be certain that you have the necessary expertise and time to provide a critical evaluation of the article. You should ensure that:

The article matches your expertise. You log into your Eufoni account and read the manuscript's abstract to determine whether your field of expertise matches that of the manuscript.
You are able to both complete the review on time and dedicate the appropriate time to conducting a thorough review. A review should be completed within three weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this timeframe, you may let the editor know. If possible, you may also suggest an alternate reviewer. If you agree to review a manuscript, but later on you are unable to complete it on time, you may contact the editor as soon as possible.
You have no conflict of interest. Should you have one, contact the editor and immediately recuse yourself. If you were unable to detect any conflict before agreeing to the review request, but find one during the review, simply contact the editor and explain why you cannot continue.

Reviewer ethics

Eufoni relies on the impartiality and discretion of reviewers, and as a reviewer, you are entrusted with confidential material meant solely for critical evaluation. We expect you to treat all documents and correspondence related to the review with the appropriate level of care, such as:

Do not use any of the information therein for the advancement of your own research or to discredit another party.
Do not discuss any aspect of the manuscript with a third party.
Ensure that the information therein and details of the review process remain confidential before, during, and after publication.
Be fair, honest, and objective in evaluating the manuscript.
Declare a conflict of interest, and recuse yourself immediately if you believe your impartiality has been compromised.

Conducting the review

Panopticon's review procedure

Eufoni uses an online submission and peer review system. When reviewers are requested to review a paper submitted to Eufoni, they will have a journal account created for them, through which they will be able to read the abstract and decide whether to agree to review it.

If you have been requested to review a paper, simply log into your reviewer account, read the provided abstract, and indicate whether you agree to review it. If you decline to review the manuscript, please include the reason why, and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer from a similar field.

To ensure the integrity of the peer-review process, all further correspondence will be through the open journal system, with the reviewer being given access to the full manuscript and provided with a review page to fill out and submit. If you wish, you can also provide comments directly on the manuscript file, but be sure that all comments are made anonymously and focus on the content of the article, not its layout or formatting.

Basic criteria

A good review looks at both the overall quality of the manuscript and the accuracy and precision of its details. The former is informed by the latter. When evaluating a manuscript for Eufoni, look at the following aspects:

Scope. Is the manuscript within Eufoni's scope? How interesting will the article be to the journal's readership?
Novelty of the research. Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting? Does it add new knowledge? How original is the research?
Appropriateness of the title. Does the title accurately represent the content?
Content quality. Does the article adhere to Eufoni's standards? Is the research question an important one? Does the manuscript help to expand or further current research in its respective field?
Methodology. Is the description of the methodology informative, clear, and concise? Is the methodology of the research precise and properly conducted? How appropriate is the approach or experimental design?
Significance of the results. Do the results have significant implications for English Studies in general or society?
Appropriateness of tables, figures, and/or supplemental material. Is every figure/table necessary and correctly described? Is the supplementary material appropriate for the content?
Completeness of the data. How complete are the data?
Relevance of the discussion. Is the discussion relevant to the results and rest of the content? Have the authors appropriately discussed their results in the context of previous research?
Appropriateness of citations/references. Are all citations accounted for? Is there an appropriate amount of citations for the content (neither too few nor too many)?
Clarity of the content. How good is the English? Will Eufoni's readership have trouble understanding the content?
Adherence to Eufoni's guidelines. Does the manuscript adhere to the journal's guidelines, such as the structure of the manuscript? Have tables and figures been submitted separately?

Ethical considerations

In addition to the above criteria, also pay attention to whether the manuscript contains instances of plagiarism, improper referencing, re-publication, or fraud. Things to look for:

Plagiarism. Observe whether a portion of the manuscript has been copied from another work without giving appropriate credit. For example, text has been copied verbatim without a clear indication that it is a quote, text has been copied but not cited (suggesting that these are the authors' own words/ideas), or some portion of the text has been copied without the permission of the original author. If you find that a significant part of the manuscript has been plagiarized, please contact the editor as soon as possible so we can take the appropriate actions.
Improper referencing. All text, figures, tables, data, ideas, or concepts that have been published previously should be cited. It is considered plagiarism for an author to present something as their own even though it is not, regardless of their intent.
Re-publication. It is against Panopticon’s policy to publish work that has already been published elsewhere. Please notify the editor if you find an instance of a manuscript having been published previously (partially or fully).
Fraud. Any part of the manuscript that is found to be untrue should be highlighted. Any form of data manipulation or tampering should be brought to the editor's attention.

Publication ethics is not limited to these four items. If you believe the authors have attempted to mislead readers, infringed upon a copyright, or might jeopardize the integrity of the journal in any other way, please contact the handling editor.

The Eufoni review form

Once you have gathered enough information to make decision on the manuscript, log into your Eufoni account to complete the review. At minimum, you will be required to grade the manuscript based on the aforementioned criteria as well as to summarize your major findings and give your overall impression of the article. Although it is only optional, we highly encourage you to also take the opportunity to comment on the manuscript in more detail, and provide specific suggestions that might improve any aspect of it.

If you have made specific comments in the manuscript file, remember to anonymize them to prevent the authors from being able to identify you.

Making good comments

It is important to ensure that all comments are constructive and intended to improve the quality of the manuscript or otherwise help the authors understand where they went wrong. You should consider making comments that fall outside of this purview:

Do not comment on the acceptability of the manuscript, and avoid suggesting revisions as conditions for acceptance.
Provide detailed and unambiguous comments.
Be respectful and positive. You should help the authors improve their article by providing constructive criticism and helpful suggestions (Consider how you would like your own manuscript to be reviewed).
Highlight areas that need clarification or should be elaborated further by the authors.
Make suggestions on how the authors can improve problematic passages. How might they improve the clarity of a given section?
You are not required to edit the authors’ style or grammar, but any improvement to the clarity of the manuscript is greatly appreciated, especially in regards to technical terms.
Highlight consistent instances of outdated or misspelled technical terminology.
Avoid making dogmatic statements. You should be able to back-up your comments with proof or precedence in previous literature.
Take care not to dismiss the manuscript related to its novelty, methodology, or findings.

Recommendations

Your final task as a reviewer will be to recommend that the manuscript is a) accepted, b) accepted with revisions, c) resubmitted for review, d) resubmitted elsewhere, or e) declined. If the manuscript is rejected, you should explain your reasons why.

Each recommendation should be supported by the facts of the evaluation, and backed with constructive criticism. Be aware that you are one of at least two reviewers. Even if your recommendation differs from the other reviewers' recommendations, a good critical review will enable us to make an informed final decision on the manuscript. Also note that the final decision on the manuscript is made by the editorial board, taking into account the recommendation of each review, and your recommendation might not be reflected in this decision.

Reviewer Guidelines

Menu Bar