Editorial Operations
Peer Review Form
For assigned reviewers only. Complete all sections applicable to your role. Read the instructions below before submitting.
Role Quick Reference
Select the Role That Matches Your Assignment
Phase 1
Initial Reviewer
Assess technical quality only — writing, clarity, formatting, and citations. Do not evaluate originality or scholarly contribution.
Phase 2
Editorial Reviewer
Assess scholarly merit — originality, contribution to the field, relevance, accessibility, and credibility of sources.
Phase 3
Handling Editor
Synthesize reviewer feedback into a consolidated summary and produce a defensible recommendation for the Editor-in-Chief.
Phase 4
Editor-in-Chief
Review the full editorial record and issue the final publication decision: Accept, Revise & Resubmit, or Reject.
Reviewer Instructions
Before You Start
Pre-Review Checklist
- Open the manuscript file you were assigned and confirm you are reviewing the correct version — Original, Round 1, Round 2, or Final.
- Set aside 10–20 minutes for article reviews; longer for book or chapter reviews.
- If you believe you were assigned the wrong manuscript or role, stop and contact the SRPI editorial team before submitting.
Step-by-Step
- Enter your name and email — SRPI uses this to match your review to the correct assignment.
- Select your Role carefully — this controls which sections appear in the form:
- Initial Reviewer — technical quality only
- Editorial Reviewer — scholarly merit
- Handling Editor — synthesize and recommend
- Editor-in-Chief — final decision
- Confirm the Publication Type and Manuscript Type (Journal Article, Magazine Article, Book Manuscript, or Book Chapter).
- Complete the 1–5 rating questions for each applicable criterion.
- Use the checkboxes to flag issues. Only “Suggestions” boxes require written comments.
- Provide your Final Recommendation when prompted.
- Complete the conflict-of-interest declaration, then sign and date.
- Submit once. Your submission becomes part of the official editorial record.
Rating Scale
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 1 | Serious deficiencies |
| 2 | Below acceptable standard |
| 3 | Acceptable but needs improvement |
| 4 | Strong |
| 5 | Excellent / publication-ready |
Role Guidance
- Initial Reviewers — Grammar, writing style, clarity, formatting, citation errors, and overall academic quality. Do not assess originality or field contribution.
- Editorial Reviewers — Originality, scholarly contribution, relevance to current research or policy debates, accessibility to non-specialists, and credibility of sources. Do not focus on minor grammar unless it affects comprehension.
- Handling Editors — Consolidate reviewer input into a clear author summary and a defensible Editor-in-Chief recommendation.
- Editor-in-Chief — Reviews the full record and issues the final decision.
Confidentiality
Treat all manuscripts and review proceedings as strictly confidential. Do not distribute submissions or discuss them outside the review process.
If you identify a potential conflict of interest, select “Potential conflict” in the form and notify the SRPI editorial team before completing your review.
Submit Your Review
Peer Review Form
This form covers all review phases. Select your role at the top of the form — only the sections applicable to your role will be displayed. Submit once only.
Form not loading? Open in a new tab →
Editorial Team Contact
For assignment questions, conflicts of interest, or form issues — contact the editorial team directly.