|
NEW
DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION: REVIEW GUIDELINES
New Directions
reviews have two parts:
Note: I will return
the narrative review to the proposal author, so please do not make
recommendations about acceptance or rejection in the review itself.
Instead convey such recommendations in a separate cover letter or
e-mail to me.
In the narrative review, please answer the
following questions, commenting on both the overall proposal and on
particular contributions to the proposed volume, as appropriate:
-
Overall merits: What are your overall
impressions of the merits of the proposal? Is it strong, weak,
or somewhere in-between?
-
Strengths and weaknesses: What are the
strengths of the proposal? Does the proposal reflect any unusual
strength (e.g., unusually strong methods or an exceptionally
strong group of contributors)? What are its weaknesses? Does the
proposal contain any fatal flaws? Are they remediable?
-
Omissions or additions: Should any of the
proposed contributions to the volume be dropped (or combined
into one smaller contribution)? Which ones, and why? Would the
proposal benefit from the addition of other contributors? Who
and on what topic?
-
Coverage: Is the coverage of topics
complete and balanced? What topics should be added, if any? Has
the guest editor omitted important topics or people in the
field?
-
Timeliness: Does the volume reflect
particularly timely issues, novel developments, or noteworthy
extensions of previous work? Is it really a “new direction” in
some important sense, and will that be evident to readers?
-
Breadth and interest: Is the proposal
likely to be of broad interest to evaluators? If not, how could
it be changed to be of broader interest?
-
Author qualifications: Do the authors seem
to have sufficient background, experience, and training to
undertake this proposal?
-
Other comments: Please list here any
specific comments not covered above.
The length of your review will depend somewhat on the
length of the proposal, as longer proposals have more details and so
allow you more room for comment. But please focus most on the key
strengths, weaknesses, and omissions of this proposal in a minimum
one- to two-page, single-spaced review. The guest editor will
appreciate whatever constructive comments you can provide.
In writing this review, please keep the following
points in mind:
-
Reviewing
proposals for NDE is, in some respects, more difficult than
reviewing most manuscripts that are submitted for publication.
In the latter case, you have the finished product in front of
you to critique. For NDE, you have only the “promise” of a
finished product, a proposal for manuscripts to be written.
While we have tried to encourage guest editors to submit
detailed proposals, obviously they cannot submit as much detail
as a finished manuscript would contain. Hence your task is as
much to judge the promise of the proposal as it is to
judge it on its merits as written. However, we want you to be as
critical as you can be of these proposals—a poorly written
proposal is likely to result in a poorly written issue.
-
The review has
two goals: 1) to determine if we should encourage the guest
editor(s) to proceed in developing the issue, and 2) to suggest
ways in which the proposal can be improved. You should discuss
both matters in your review. However, please refrain from making
recommendations about acceptance or rejection of the proposal in
your comments to the guest editor. Reviewers often do not agree
with each other, and the editor-in-chief must take into account
other matters in making the final decision. To repeat, you
should convey your opinion about acceptance or rejection in
separate comments to the editor, not in your comments to the
guest editors.
-
You should focus
your review mostly on the important strengths and flaws of the
proposal. If you feel the proposal is fatally flawed for some
reason, then say why. If you feel the proposal is a clear
winner, tell us that also. If the proposal is somewhere between
these two endpoints, tell us how the proposal could be improved.
Be specific in these suggestions. In particular, please tell us
about additional topics and authors that the proposal does not
include but should.
-
Finally, please
write your review in as friendly a tone as possible. Offer
specific observations and suggestions for changes, doing so as
respectfully as you would want to be treated yourself. Part of
the editorial process is instructional, so it may be helpful to
frame your comments in that light.
Thank you for your willingness to participate in the
editorial review process. Your commitment is what keeps New
Directions of high quality. |
