Peer reviewers should provide an objective critical evaluation of the paper in the broadest terms practicable. Reviewers need to make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief by deciding on a rank between 1-9, where 1 is well-written and 9 is so flawed that rejection is recommended.
You should also indicate if the manuscript requires its English grammar, punctuation or spelling to be corrected (there is a prompt for this).
Your report must contain a recommendation and a description of your reasons for that recommendation. If you believe the paper needs changes to be made before it is acceptable, please make suggestions on how to improve the paper. Likewise if you feel that a paper is not good enough and has no real prospects of being improved sufficiently to be published you should recommend rejection.
Consideration should be given to whether the paper is suitable for the journal it is submitted to. Each journal’s aims and scope is available on the left of its home page.
You should consider the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers before accepting to review a paper and throughout the review process.
Deadline for completion of peer-review
We request that you provide your input via the Newredmars Education link on our website. The invitation sent to you provides a date when we require to have received your comments.
Conflicts of interest
You may not undertake a peer review on a submission if you are unable to do so objectively.