Table of Contents
Introduction to Peer Review
Peer review is a cornerstone of academic publishing, ensuring the quality, validity, and significance of scholarly work. As a reviewer for the Albanian Journal of Roma Studies, you play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of our publication and advancing knowledge in the field of Romani studies.
The Value of Your Contribution
Your expertise helps ensure that only high-quality, methodologically sound, and ethically conducted research is published. Your constructive feedback also helps authors improve their work, regardless of the final publication decision.
The Albanian Journal of Roma Studies employs a double-blind peer review process, where both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other. This helps minimize bias and ensures evaluations are based solely on the quality of the research.
Reviewer Responsibilities
As a reviewer, you have several important responsibilities to the authors, the journal, and the scholarly community:
Professional Conduct
- Provide objective, constructive, and unbiased assessments
- Evaluate manuscripts within your area of expertise
- Respect the confidentiality of the review process
- Submit reviews within the agreed timeframe
- Decline review requests when unable to meet deadlines
Ethical Obligations
- Disclose any conflicts of interest
- Alert editors to suspected ethical issues
- Maintain the anonymity of the review process
- Do not use unpublished information from manuscripts
- Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents
Quality Assessment
- Evaluate originality and significance of the research
- Assess methodological rigor and analytical approach
- Check for appropriate literature review and citations
- Evaluate clarity of presentation and writing quality
- Consider ethical aspects of the research
Conflict of Interest
If you have any personal, professional, or financial relationships that could be perceived as influencing your review, you must decline the review request or disclose the conflict to the editor. Examples include:
- Close professional relationships with authors
- Direct competition or collaboration on related research
- Financial interests related to the research outcomes
- Personal biases that may affect objectivity
Confidentiality and Ethics
The peer review process is confidential. You must not discuss the manuscript or your review with anyone except the journal editor.
Confidentiality Guidelines
- Do not share the manuscript with colleagues or students without explicit permission from the editor
- Do not use ideas, data, or text from the manuscript in your own work
- Destroy or delete the manuscript and related materials after completing your review
- Do not reveal your identity as a reviewer to the authors
Ethical Concerns
If you suspect any of the following ethical issues, please bring them to the attention of the editor immediately:
- Plagiarism or text recycling without attribution
- Data fabrication or falsification
- Duplicate publication or redundant publication
- Ethical concerns regarding research with human participants
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest
- Authorship issues (guest authorship, ghost authorship)
Reporting Ethical Concerns
If you identify potential ethical issues, describe your concerns clearly and provide specific examples or evidence in your confidential comments to the editor. Do not make accusations without evidence.
Writing Effective Reviews
A good review provides constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work and helps editors make informed decisions. Follow these guidelines for writing effective reviews:
Structure Your Review
- Summary: Begin with a brief summary of the research to demonstrate your understanding
- Major Comments: Address significant issues related to methodology, analysis, interpretation, or contribution to the field
- Minor Comments: Note specific corrections needed for clarity, formatting, or presentation
- Confidential Comments: Include any ethical concerns or confidential feedback for the editor
Writing Style and Tone
- Use a respectful, professional, and constructive tone
- Be specific in your comments and provide examples when possible
- Focus on the work, not the authors
- Balance criticism with positive feedback when appropriate
- Suggest solutions or alternatives for identified problems
Example of Constructive Feedback
Instead of: "The methodology is flawed."
Try: "The sampling method may introduce selection bias. Consider using stratified sampling to ensure better representation of the diverse Roma communities discussed in the introduction."
Evaluation Criteria
When evaluating manuscripts, consider the following criteria:
Originality and Significance
- Does the research address an important question?
- Does it make a novel contribution to the field?
- Is the research relevant to Roma studies?
- Does it advance theoretical understanding?
- Does it have practical or policy implications?
Methodological Rigor
- Is the research design appropriate for the research question?
- Are methods described in sufficient detail?
- Is the sample size and selection appropriate?
- Are data collection methods valid and reliable?
- Are analytical techniques appropriate and properly applied?
Presentation and Clarity
- Is the manuscript well-organized and logical?
- Is the writing clear and accessible?
- Are tables and figures appropriate and well-designed?
- Is the abstract informative and accurate?
- Is the title appropriate and descriptive?
Special Considerations for Roma Studies
When reviewing manuscripts in Romani studies, please pay particular attention to:
- Cultural Sensitivity: Does the research demonstrate respect for Romani culture and communities?
- Community Engagement: Does the research involve or consider perspectives from Roma communities?
- Historical Context: Does the research appropriately contextualize findings within the historical experiences of Roma populations?
- Terminology: Does the manuscript use appropriate and respectful terminology when referring to Roma communities?
- Power Dynamics: Does the research acknowledge and address power dynamics in research relationships?
Decision Recommendations
Based on your evaluation, you will be asked to recommend one of the following decisions:
| Recommendation | Description | When to Use |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Manuscript is suitable for publication with minor or no revisions | The research is sound, makes a significant contribution, and requires only minor editorial changes |
| Minor Revisions | Manuscript requires minor changes before acceptance | The research is strong but needs clarification, additional explanation, or minor corrections |
| Major Revisions | Manuscript requires substantial revisions before reconsideration | The research has potential but has significant flaws in methodology, analysis, or interpretation that need addressing |
| Reject | Manuscript is not suitable for publication | The research has fundamental flaws, lacks originality, or falls outside the journal's scope |
Providing Clear Recommendations
Your recommendation should align with the comments in your review. If you recommend major revisions or rejection, provide clear, specific reasons that will help the editor communicate the decision to the authors.
Review Timeline
We strive to provide authors with timely decisions. The typical review timeline is as follows:
Respond to review invitation and confirm availability
Complete the review and submit your assessment
Editor evaluates all reviews and makes decision
Authors receive decision and reviewer comments
Timely Reviews
If you cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe, please inform the editor as soon as possible. This allows us to find an alternative reviewer and prevents unnecessary delays for authors.
For complex manuscripts or during busy periods, the editor may extend the review period. You will be notified if this occurs.
Using the Review System
Our manuscript submission and review system is designed to be user-friendly. Here's how to navigate the review process:
Accessing the System
- You will receive an email invitation with a direct link to the manuscript
- Log in to the system using your reviewer credentials
- If you don't have an account, you can create one using the link in the invitation
Completing Your Review
- Download and read the manuscript carefully
- Complete the review form with your comments and recommendations
- Use the text boxes provided for:
- Comments to the author (constructive feedback)
- Confidential comments to the editor (ethical concerns, etc.)
- Submit your review through the system
Technical Support
If you encounter any technical issues with the review system, please contact our editorial office at editorial@ajrs.irca.al.
Becoming a Regular Reviewer
If you're interested in joining our pool of regular reviewers, please update your profile in the system to include your areas of expertise. This helps us match you with manuscripts that align with your research interests.
Thank You for Your Service
Peer review is an essential but often unrecognized contribution to the academic community. We sincerely appreciate your time and expertise in helping maintain the quality of the Albanian Journal of Roma Studies.