Reviewer Information
This page contains information on:
1. How to register as a reviewer
2. AAR Journal expectations of a reviewer
3. Free online tutorials about reviewing and the peer-review process
1. How to register
Use the Register link at the top of the home page for the journal.
Make sure to check the "Yes, request Reviewer role" box at the bottom of the registration page.
This registration will also sign you in as a reader. You will receive the Table of Contents by email for each new issue of the journal. By being part of the reader's list you help the journal claim a certain level of support or readership. We assure all readers/reviewers that their name and email address will not be used for other purposes. Please visit the journal's Privacy Statement for more information.
If you do not wish to be notified when new issues are published, please send an email to aarjournal@ualberta.ca requesting that you only be enrolled as a Reviewer, and not as a Reader.
Once you are signed-in you may use the OJS reviewing process tutorial, which is meant to help guide your steps within the system: OJS how to reviewing process
2. Expectations from a reviewer
a. When contacted by the journal to make a review, we expect that your review will be completed within 14 days
b. As a reviewer, you are responsible for avoiding a potential conflict of interest situations. If this occurs in your case please decline the invitation to review.
a. When contacted by the journal to make a review, we expect that your review will be completed within 14 days
b. As a reviewer, you are responsible for avoiding a potential conflict of interest situations. If this occurs in your case please decline the invitation to review.
c. We are conducting a double-blind review, this means that names of the Reviewers must not be known to the authors. Please note that if you attach a MS Word file or a PDF file with your comments, please first go to the file property and delete your name and affiliation that might reveal your identity.
d. Please make constructive comments that will help the authors that will help improve the manuscript. Also, make comments to reduce the size of the paper instead of enlarging it.
e. Carefully check the technical nature of the paper, which can signify the possible contribution to the field of study.
f. List major and specific points separated.
The major point is a general comment in a paragraph format addressing major issues in the manuscript.
Specific comments listed in point-format, one by one indicating the lines where the author needs to revise.
g. You may advise the authors to update the references, but a reviewer must never propose to include his own work for profitable gain.
h. Please remember to respect for authors in your review (decision), even if you feel that the paper is poor in quality.
i. When writing your decision please thoroughly explain your choice: reject/revise/accept
h. Please remember to respect for authors in your review (decision), even if you feel that the paper is poor in quality.
i. When writing your decision please thoroughly explain your choice: reject/revise/accept
Be aware that "new results" and "technically correct information" maybe not be sufficient reasons for manuscript acceptance.
3. Free online tutorials about reviewing and the peer-review process
a. Certified Peer Reviewer Course from Elsevier Research Academy
b. Becoming a Reviewer from Public Knowlege Project
Alberta Academic Review Ltd.