Guide for referees

This guide is sent to all referees of papers submitted to Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online (www.rsnz.org/publish/kotuitui/).

A referee is asked to consider what contribution a paper makes to knowledge. Even though the referee may disagree with the author's opinions, the referee should allow them to stand, provided they are consistent with available evidence.

The criteria listed below are considered by editors among those to be used when assessing a paper's suitability for publication. An answer to every question is not essential, but all criticisms of the manuscript should be substantiated. Please note that we are concerned solely with whether the paper is suitable for Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online.

A definite recommendation on the paper's suitability for publication should be made.

However, please do not make any specific statement about the acceptability of the paper in your comments for transmission to the author, but advise the editors of your opinion in a covering letter with your comments. Any changes necessary to make the paper acceptable for publication should also be indicated.

For acceptable papers, we are anxious to improve clarity, succinctness, and quality of presentation generally. Your suggestions to this end will be welcome if you have the time to offer them in your comments.

The anonymity of a referee will be preserved unless the referee wishes otherwise.

Referees are cautioned about being unduly negative in their comments. Where warranted, a referee should point out particularly good aspects of a paper; authors welcome positive feedback as well as constructive criticism.

A Peer Review Form is sent to referees as part of this guide. Please complete the form and return it along with your more detailed comments.

Criteria for consideration

Information content

As far as you know, does the paper describe new work, new results, or a new theory or interpretation? Does the paper provide valuable confirmation of previously published information?

Technical and experimental methods

Are any new methods described? How adequate are the methods and the controls used?

Amount of experimental material and data

Is this large, adequate, small, or insufficient?

Calculations and statistical treatment

Do any of the calculations contain errors? Is the statistical treatment of the data adequate or erroneous?

Interpretation

Are the conclusions justified? Consider whether the interpretation is adequate, not warranted by the data, or suffers from important omissions or loose generalisation.

Title

Does the title adequately convey the main subject or message of the paper, in as few words as possible? Please examine the title critically, with the needs of information retrieval in mind.

Abstract

Is the abstract a clear and adequate indication of the paper's content, i.e., does it state the purpose of the paper and the investigation on which it is based, indicate the methods used, and summarise the results reported and the conclusions drawn?

Presentation and style

Is the information presented in a logical sequence? Is the paper's length adequate, is it too brief for clarity, or could it be shortened? Does the paper contain irrelevant material? Is the arrangement of sections suitable; would rearrangement improve the paper? Is the paper well written?

Illustrations and tables

Are all the illustrations and tables necessary? Could the information in parts of the text be more clearly and concisely presented by the use of more illustrations and/or tables, or vice versa? Should any table be rearranged to present data more clearly? Is the quality of any photograph or line drawing inadequate?

Literature references

Are all references to other work justified? Has the author omitted reference to any significant work?

Acknowledgments

Do the acknowledgments adequately recognise any assistance received by the author?