Reviewer Guidelines

International Journal of Development and Innovation Studies (IJDIS)

Reviewer Guidelines and Evaluation Template

Prepared for
International Journal of Development and Innovation Studies

For IJDIS, however, the review framework should be:

  • more interdisciplinary,
  • development-policy oriented,
  • innovation-sensitive,
  • Africa/Global South conscious,
  • and aligned with modern scholarly publishing standards.

Your current sample leans heavily toward traditional social science review architecture. IJDIS needs something slightly broader and more contemporary — almost a hybrid between:

  • development studies,
  • innovation systems,
  • policy research,
  • technology,
  • governance,
  • and applied interdisciplinary scholarship.

Below is a professionally upgraded IJDIS version.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION STUDIES (IJDIS)

Reviewer Guidelines and Evaluation Template

About the Journal

The International Journal of Development and Innovation Studies publishes high-quality interdisciplinary research that advances knowledge, policy, innovation, and practice in development studies, governance, technology, education, economics, entrepreneurship, sustainability, public administration, and related fields, with particular emphasis on Africa and the Global South.

IJDIS adopts a double-blind peer-review process to ensure academic integrity, scholarly quality, originality, and ethical publishing standards.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and scholarly feedback.
  • Evaluate manuscripts fairly and confidentially.
  • Identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement.
  • Maintain ethical standards and avoid conflicts of interest.
  • Submit reviews within the stipulated timeline.

Reviewers should NOT:

  • disclose their identity to authors,
  • use offensive language,
  • or directly state publication decisions in comments addressed to authors.

Publication recommendations should only appear in the confidential section to editors.

Core Review Criteria

Please assess the manuscript based on the following dimensions.

Criteria

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Originality and Innovation

☐

☐

☐

☐

Relevance to Development Studies

☐

☐

☐

☐

Contribution to Knowledge

☐

☐

☐

☐

Literature Review Quality

☐

☐

☐

☐

Methodological Rigor

☐

☐

☐

☐

Data Analysis and Interpretation

☐

☐

☐

☐

Clarity and Organization

☐

☐

☐

☐

Academic Writing Quality

☐

☐

☐

☐

Policy/Practical Relevance

☐

☐

☐

☐

Ethical Compliance

☐

☐

☐

☐

Detailed Reviewer Assessment

  1. Significance and Relevance

Please evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • Addresses an important development issue or societal challenge.
  • Contributes meaningfully to scholarship, policy, or practice.
  • Advances understanding within development and innovation studies.
  • Demonstrates relevance to Africa, the Global South, or emerging economies where applicable.

Reviewer Comments:

  1. Originality and Contribution

Please assess:

  • Novelty of ideas, framework, or findings.
  • Contribution to existing literature.
  • Innovative methodologies, perspectives, or applications.
  • Whether the manuscript meaningfully extends current debates.

Reviewer Comments:

  1. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Please evaluate whether:

  • Relevant literature is adequately reviewed.
  • Sources are current and scholarly.
  • Theoretical positioning is clear and appropriate.
  • Research gaps are properly identified.

Reviewer Comments:

  1. Methodology and Research Design

Please assess:

  • Suitability of research design.
  • Clarity of methods and procedures.
  • Adequacy of sampling, instruments, and data collection.
  • Reliability and validity/trustworthiness.
  • Ethical considerations.

Reviewer Comments:

  1. Results, Discussion, and Interpretation

Please evaluate whether:

  • Results are clearly presented.
  • Analysis is coherent and evidence-based.
  • Findings support the conclusions.
  • Discussion connects findings to existing scholarship.
  • Implications for policy, development, or practice are articulated.

Reviewer Comments:

  1. Language, Structure, and Presentation

Please assess:

  • Clarity and readability.
  • Logical organization.
  • Grammar and academic tone.
  • Quality of tables, figures, and references.
  • Adherence to journal formatting guidelines.

Reviewer Comments:

  1. Ethical and Scholarly Standards

Please indicate whether:

Ethical Requirement

Yes

No

No evidence of plagiarism

☐

☐

Appropriate citations provided

☐

☐

Ethical approval mentioned where necessary

☐

☐

Conflict of interest disclosed

☐

☐

Research integrity maintained

☐

☐

Additional Ethical Comments:

Comments to the Author(s)

Please provide constructive feedback intended to improve the manuscript.

(Do NOT indicate publication recommendation in this section.)

Confidential Comments to the Editor

Please summarize your independent professional assessment and justify your recommendation.

Reviewer Recommendation

Please tick ONE option only.

Recommendation

Tick

Accept without Revision

☐

Accept with Minor Revisions

☐

Major Revisions Required

☐

Resubmit for Fresh Review

☐

Reject

☐

Recommendation Definitions

Accept without Revision

The manuscript meets the journal’s scholarly standards and requires no substantive changes.

Accept with Minor Revisions

The manuscript is publishable subject to minor editorial or technical improvements.

Major Revisions Required

The manuscript demonstrates scholarly potential but requires substantial revisions before reconsideration.

Resubmit for Fresh Review

The manuscript requires extensive restructuring, re-analysis, or reconceptualization and must undergo a new review cycle after resubmission.

Reject

The manuscript is unsuitable for publication due to significant conceptual, methodological, ethical, or scholarly limitations.

Respond to a Review Request#

Invitations to review will be sent to you by a journal editor or section editor. The invitation will be sent via email, with some basic information about the manuscript you’re being asked to review (title, abstract, and relevant dates), followed by a URL to respond to the request.

To respond to the review request, follow the link or log in to your account on the journal’s website. If you did not already have an account, the editor may have invited you to create a new one.

After logging in, you will find the Review Assignment for this request in your Review Assignments Dashboard. If you do not see the submission you expect to see, please contact the journal editor.

On the top-right corner, the bell icon (notifications) shows your outstanding tasks. The review assignment will be included in your notifications.

From your queue on the Submissions Dashboard, click the Respond to request button to access your Review Assignment. You will see basic information about the article and the review assignment:

  • Article Title: The title of the manuscript to be reviewed.
  • Abstract: The abstract of the manuscript to be reviewed.
  • Review Type: The type of review you are being asked to conduct.
  • Review Files: All relevant files related to the manuscript.
  • Review Schedule: The date the review request was sent, the due date for a response to the review request, and the due date for the review.
  • Review Type is set by a journal’s editor. There are three types of review:
    • Anonymous reviewer/Anonymous author: a “double-blind” review in which neither the reviewer (you) nor the author know one another’s names.
    • Anonymous reviewer/Disclosed author: the name of the reviewer (you) is unknown to the author, but the name of the author is known to the reviewer.
    • Open: the name of the reviewer (you) will be known to the author when the review is submitted and the name of the author is known to the reviewer.
  • Review Schedule is also set by the journal’s editor. Please note that none of the date fields in the review schedule are editable by the reviewer. These dates are only provided to help you assess whether you’re able to provide a review. If you’d like to negotiate new due dates, please contact the journal editor before accepting the review request.

Click “View all Submission Details” for additional information about the submission, including keywords. If the review type allows the author’s name to be disclosed, “View All Submission Details” will include the author’s name.

You will also be asked to agree to having your data collected and stored according to the journal’s privacy statement, which you can read before agreeing. From here, you can decline or accept the review. If you decline, you will be dropped from the process. If you accept, you will move to review step 2.

To accept the assignment, click “Accept Review, Continue to Step #2”. To decline the assignment, click “Decline Review Request”.

Read Review Guidelines#

If the editors of the journal have written Reviewer Guidelines, they will appear in the second step of the review process. Read these guidelines carefully before you begin your review.

You can review these guidelines at any time even after proceeding by clicking on the “2. Guidelines” tab.

Hit Continue to move to step 3.

Conduct a Review#

From here, you can download a copy of the review files and enter your review comments. The first window is for comments to the editor and the author; while any comments entered in the second window can only be seen by the editor.

If the journal’s editor has provided a Review Form, it will be visible in this step of the review process. Complete the form in accordance with the editor’s instructions.

Once you have read the paper and added your comments, you can optionally upload a marked up copy of the review file in the Upload section further down the page.

If the review type specifies an anonymous reviewer, remember to strip any personal identification from the file before uploading it. See this page for details on anonymizing various documents.

Next, you must then make your recommendation using the dropdown menu.

Possible choices include:

  • Accept Submission: The submission does not need further revisions or corrections.
  • Revisions Required: Requires minor changes.
  • Resubmit for Review: Requires major changes and another round of peer review.
  • Resubmit Elsewhere: Doesn’t fit the focus and scope of this journal.
  • Decline Submission: Doesn’t fit the requirements of the journal and is unsuitable for publication.
  • See Comments: If none of the above recommendations are suitable, you can leave a comment for the editor detailing your thoughts.

Note: Some options may not available to you depending on the journal’s settings.

Use Discussions to Communicate With Editors#

In both Step 3: Download & Review and Step 4: Completion, you will have access to the Review Discussion panel. You can use discussions to communicate with Editors if you have questions about the manuscript or the review process.

Click the “Add discussion” button to begin a new discussion. You can then choose which Editor(s) should receive the message, enter a subject and body, and optionally upload attachments.

Click a discussion in the panel to open it and view any replies, as well as add new messages.

Complete a Review#

When you are satisfied with your review and your recommendation, hit the Submit Review button to complete your task. You’ll be asked to confirm.

Hit OK. You will be taken to the final confirmation screen thanking you for your work.

That’s it! The review is now complete.

Copyright: Simon Fraser University holds the copyright for work produced by the Public Knowledge Project and has placed its documentation under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.