For Reviewers

IJRP: REVIEWING PROCESS GUIDELINES

General comments

Full-length submissions to the IJRP are shepherded through double-blind review by 2-3 reviewers. Because our field is multidisciplinary, reviewers may come from different educational backgrounds and hold diverse types of expertise. As a reviewer you will not know the author of the paper you review, nor will the author be made aware of your identity. The exception to this rule is in the case of papers curated from conferences, which may have an open peer review process taking place among the academics attending the same event.

When you get sent a paper by the IJRP submissions editor, you will normally be asked to complete the review within one month. Please try to stick to the deadline (or to request a longer span from the start if you are too busy), so that we can plan ahead for the next issue and the process is not interrupted. If you experience delays, please let the IJRP submissions editor know as soon as possible.

We request that reviewer comments include constructive criticism and are delivered in an encouraging tone. Please provide specific advice for improvement where possible. You may also address any confidential concerns regarding the work to the editorial board in the final section on the form (see below). Your comments will be used by the editorial team to reach a decision about the paper. Most comments will be sent to the author as feedback and as guidelines for revision prior to publication if the paper is accepted or recommended to revise and resubmit.

You are not required to do any proof editing (grammar, syntax, etc.) but please let us know if you feel that the paper needs particular attention in this area. Additionally, we accept line-by-line comments on content within the submission document itself in addition to the review form, although such details are not required.

Please note that your ranking of the manuscript will be extremely important in our decision for accepting/rejecting the paper, e.g. Accept as Is, Accept with Minor Revisions, Accept with Major Revisions, Revise and Resubmit, or Reject.

The submitted work and your review is strictly confidential; we ask that you do not discuss or share them with any third party. Additionally, we request that you avoid sharing information about the peer review process on social media, even if no identifying details are visible, in order to preserve reviewer and author anonymity in this small, but growing field.

International Journal of Role-Playing Peer Review Form

Thank you for agreeing to offer peer review for the International Journal of Role-Playing. Please refer to the Aims and Scope and assess the paper according to the categories listed below. Remember that this review process is double blind.

* * *

  1. Title of the Article:

 

  1. Reviewer’s recommendation

Accept as is

The article is fully acceptable as it is, and the manuscript is correctly formatted.

 

Accept subject to minor revisions

The article is suitable for publication but requires some corrections or small additions.         

 

 

Accept subject to major revisions

This article is suitable for publication but some sections require re-working.

 

Recommend major revisions and resubmission

This article has the potential to be suitable for publication, but re-working of some or all sections of the paper is required. The extent of the required revisions necessitates resubmission and re-review.

 

Reject

The article is unsuitable for publication in the International Journal of Role-Playing.

 

 Level of reviewer confidence:

I am very confident in my evaluation of this paper

 

I am somewhat confident in my evaluation of this paper

 

I am not very confident in my evaluation of this paper

 

 

Overall assessment of the writing style, including organization, tone, and grammar:

 

 

Overall assessment of the scholarly quality, including appropriateness of sources, number of citations, and correctness of citation style (Chicago Author-Date):

 

 

Overall assessment of the main claims and supporting evidence:

 

 

Overall assessment of the article’s contribution to the larger body of literature in role-play studies:

 

 

Recommended revisions (including sources):

 

 

Confidential comments to the editor (optional):