Reviewers: Frequently Asked Questions

Why have I been asked to review?

Peer review is an integral part of validating, improving, and evaluating manuscripts to be published by a journal. All parties are anonymous, except to the editorial team who manage the process. Potential reviewers are selected based on their expertise (academic or practice) rather than their seniority, job title, or academic qualifications.

The Journal of Human Rights Practice encourages critical dialogue between academics, practitioners, and the public about human rights practice and activism across the world. As such, individuals may be asked to review a paper because they have published on the topic, worked on similar projects, have experience in similar methodologies, and other such factors.

How long will it take me?

The length of time it takes to review depends on the paper, your availability, and your experience of reviewing. On average, reviewing a full-length journal article can take 2-5 hours. We recommend reading through the paper first, making a note of any major concerns or comments you may have. Then, using the online form provided, write a more detailed discussion of your thoughts on the paper. The Journal of Human Rights Practice does not require any formal structure to the review, for example you may wish to write in bullet points or paragraphs.

We do not ask for line by line edits or comments. Instead, you can provide feedback on overall structure, quality, and accuracy. More guidance on this is presented below.

You will be given a deadline for the review. However, if the date specified poses a problem, please contact the Editor or Managing Editor to discuss amending it.

If you require the document in a more accessible format, please contact the managing editor.

What if I decline the review?

You are under no obligation to accept an invitation to review. You may still create an account with the The Journal of Human Rights Practice submission site, which can be useful for future reviews or submitting your own papers. You will not be asked to review another paper within at least one year of declining or accepting a review, unless you have agreed to do so with the editor. You can also indicate when you are unavailable to review or do not wish to receive invitations on your ScholarOne account settings.

If you know of others who may be suitable for reviewing the paper, you may wish to suggest their names when declining, which is very helpful for the journal.

What should I consider when reviewing?

The review form is split into three sections.

1. Your recommendation
2. Confidential comments to the editor
3. Comments to the Author

Sections 1 and 2 will not be seen by the author, they are for informing the editorial decision only. If you believe the paper may have been plagiarised, in full or in part, please contact the editor or indicate this in the confidential comments section. Please keep in mind the aim and scope of the Journal of Human Rights Practice. While many traditional journals may emphasise theory and academic writing, the Journal of Human Rights Practice is keen to promote a range of voices and experiences.

In Section 3, there are several elements you may wish to comment on if you are reviewing an article:

• Positive and interesting features of the paper
• Overall structure and writing
• Does the paper miss significant references or developments on its topic?
• Indicate other literature or projects which could be included
• Originality of the paper
• The methodology used
• Does the paper reflect a diverse range of voices, perspectives, and authors?
• Ethical considerations
• Specific line numbers or paragraphs which need rephrasing
• Accuracy of claims and factual correctness
• Does the paper contribute to knowledge about human rights practice, in the relevant field and more generally?

Aside from articles, the Journal of Human Rights Practice also encourages the submission of Policy and Practice Notes. These are shorter submissions which are not expected to refer to theory, rather they will focus on specific forms of practice and thus your feedback should reflect this.

What does my ‘recommendation’ mean?

Your comments and recommendations are taken into consideration by the relevant co-editor, who may decide to accept, reject, or ask for the paper to be revised. If the paper is revised by the author, you may be asked to review the revised version to see if your concerns were addressed.

• Accept: the paper can be published in its current form
• Minor Revision: the paper requires some edits or elaboration before it is publishable
• Major Revision: substantial revision is required such as additional literature or rewriting
• Reject: the revision required is too great or the paper does not fit the scope of the Journal of Human Rights Practice

What happens after I have sent my review?

The manuscript, your review, and related documents must be kept confidential. The co-editor will use your review to decide on the next stage of the process and you may be asked to comment on the revised paper. If you have recommended major revision, you will be asked to look at the revised manuscript to comment on whether your concerns have been addressed.

To ensure the anonymity of reviewers, you will not be credited if the paper is published. The Journal of Human Rights Practice is extremely grateful for the time of reviewers, who are an invaluable asset to academia, critical dialogue, and the sharing of knowledge.