Reviewers' Guidelines

IBAS Journal aims to publish high-quality research articles, case reports, and review articles that contribute to the advancement of British and American Studies. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and objective feedback on the quality and relevance of submitted manuscripts.

A. Key Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, please consider the following criteria:

  1. Usefulness:
  • Does the article make a significant contribution to the field of British and American Studies?
  • Is the content relevant to the target audience of IBAS Journal?
  • Does the article provide new insights, perspectives, or methodologies?
  1. Reproducibility:
  • Is the research methodology clearly described and replicable?
  • Are the data and analysis transparent and accessible?
  • For empirical studies, is sufficient information provided to allow readers to reproduce the results (e.g., code, data, and detailed methodology)?
  • For theoretical or conceptual papers, is the argumentation clear and well-supported?
  1. Rigor:
  • Is the research question well-defined and relevant?
  • Is the research design appropriate for addressing the research question?
  • Are the data collection and analysis methods sound?
  • Are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?
  1. Clarity and Consistency:
  • Is the writing clear, concise, and well-organized?
  • Is the language used appropriate for the target audience?
  • Are the arguments logically presented and well-supported?
  • Are the findings presented in a clear and concise manner?
  1. Originality:
  • Does the article present original research or a novel perspective?
  • Does the article avoid plagiarism and self-plagiarism?
  1. Ethical Considerations:
  • Has the research been conducted ethically, in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations?
  • Have appropriate ethical approvals been obtained, if necessary?
  • Has informed consent been obtained from participants, if applicable?
  1. Specific Guidelines for Different Article Types
  • Research Articles:

            * Assess the originality, significance, and methodological rigor of the research.

            * Evaluate the clarity and coherence of the research design, data analysis, and interpretation of findings.

            * Consider the contribution of the article to the field of British and American Studies.

  • Case Reports:

            * Evaluate the novelty and significance of the case presented.

            * Assess the clarity and completeness of the case description, including the patient's history, clinical findings, and treatment.

            * Consider the implications of the case for clinical practice or future research.

  • Review Articles:

            * Assess the comprehensiveness and critical evaluation of the literature.

            * Evaluate the clarity and organization of the review.

            * Consider the significance of the review in synthesizing existing knowledge and identifying future research directions.

Please provide specific feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, including suggestions for improvement. Your constructive criticism will help authors to enhance the quality of their work.

B. Declaring competing interests:

A competing interest is anything that interferes with, or could be perceived as potentially interfering with, an objective assessment of a manuscript. Typically this could be due to a reviewer having a connection with one of the authors. Since IBAS Journal operates a double blind review process, the reviewer will not know the identities of the manuscript authors. Yet, on some occasions the manuscript content or style may indirectly allow the reviewer to guess the author identity e.g. if the manuscript is about an existing IBAS Journal extension maintained by the author. In such cases, you should reject the request to review the article if your connection to one or more authors is too close. Examples could be that you have previously collaborated and published together or that you are in a conflict with one of the authors.

Do not accept a review assignment if you have a competing interest, or feel unable to give an objective assessment. If you are unsure whether your relationship qualifies as a competing interest, contact the journal editor for advice. If we ask you to complete the review anyway, be sure to declare the competing interest when you submit your review.

If you find any information in any form on the identity of the author’s please report this immediately to the Editor (double blind review process).

C. Confidentiality

Keep manuscripts and correspondence confidential and do not share information about submissions with anyone else unless previously agreed with the Editor. We expect that reviewers will not make use of any material or take advantage of any information they gain through the peer review process.

D. Time to review

Aim to complete your review within 15 days. If you need more time to perform the review, please email us as soon as possible.

E. Qualifications of reviewer

If the reviewer feels unqualified for judging certain aspects or parts of the paper, this should be clearly stated in the comment to the editor.