Information for Reviewers
How do I sign up as a reviewer?
In order to sign up as a reviewer, you must first create a profile in the IRRODL system. Go to the Register Page. During setup, you will select the "Yes, I would like to be contacted with requests to review submissions to this journal" option and list your reviewing interests in the field provided. Reviewers MUST list their review interests.
More detailed instructions can be accessed online here.
A current list of IRRODL Reviewers can be accessed here.
What do the different recommendations mean?
Reviewers should be conscientious about providing feedback to the authors. Authors are obliged to respond to reviewers’ comments in addition to incorporating their suggestions as much as possible. Authors also have the option of declining to make suggested changes although they must explain and justify this decision.
This rating is reserved for only the most excellent articles that need little or no changes nor editing. Nevertheless, some comments, either supportive or corrective, should be included. Finding such an article is uncommon and editors do not expect to see many Accept decisions.
Minor Revisions Required
The majority of recommended articles will have comments and suggestions for revisions. Some articles just require minor revisions. These could include grammatical fixes, formatting, a stronger presentation of conclusion (for example), the addition of some more current references. In essence, minor revisions says, "This work will be ready for publication after a few things are corrected, but overall, it is a solid piece of work that is well written and completes the research task satisfactorily."
Major Revisions Required
This rating should be reserved for articles that are worth publishing but have significant shortcomings that need to be addressed. Reviewers should take care to clearly point out the work that needs to be done. Significant shortcoming might include one or more of the following: a literature that needs updating or expanding; a research question whose significance has not been clearly outlined although data have been provided to answer the question; issues in data analysis, especially on the quantitative side; poor organization that confuses the reader; a weak discussion that does not address the findings appropriately. This is not an exhaustive list; major revisions says, "We think there is a good research base but a multitude of flaws in the work must be addressed before it can be published."
Any article that is not considered of high quality or interest to the open and distributed community should be declined. If an article is considered marginal it should be declined unless there is a special reason for not declining it. In that case, reviewers should explain their decisions. There are many reasons for decline: faulty premise, sparse or old literature, faulty referencing, poor methodology, weak analysis, etc. As this is an international journal with many non-native English-speaking authors, the quality of language alone, unless incomprehensible, should not constitute a reason for decline.