Cart
Peer Review in ACS Paragon Plus
Information for Reviewers
Criteria for Review
Acceptability of a submission for publication in the Journal of Chemical Education depends on its usefulness to our readers (its content) and on its meeting standards of quality (its presentation).
Content. A publishable submission should:
- have pedagogical content, showing how the subject discussed would fit into the curriculum, how it might improve teaching or learning of chemistry in classrooms, laboratories, textbooks, or other media, or some other clearly stated pedagogical component;
- appeal to either a general audience (the majority of our readers) or a clearly identifiable special audience AND be useful to its intended audience;
- be original (not duplicate previously published material in JCE or elsewhere);
- be accurate and up-to-date;
- include a thoroughly researched bibliography;
- include complete hazard/safety information;
Presentation. A publishable submission should:
- follow the format and include the appropriate components for a manuscript type;
- be well-organized, beginning with a clear and concise introduction that encourages a reader to read it, continuing with discussion (and data where appropriate), and ending with a summary;
- recognize and cite recent relevant publications;
- be written in clear and proper English, at a level suitable for its intended audience, and of a length appropriate for its content and importance to chemical education;
- include illustrations and tables that convey information effectively, but only those needed to clarify the content.
Composing a Review
Using the requirements for content and presentation, reviewers should give estimates of the value of the work, together with some basis for their opinion. An evaluation score alone is not very helpful to either the Editors or the authors. Comments should be aimed at helping the author improve the manuscript and should be provided even if the manuscript is rated acceptable as it was originally written or unacceptable in a way that should prevent it from being published. Personal comments should be avoided.
Evaluation Scores
| Acceptable | Conforms to all of the requirements in the content and presentation checklist; no changes are required to the writing, spelling and grammar. This category is more appropriate to revised manuscripts than to original submissions. |
| Minor Revision | Contains all required content and presentation items but needs changes in writing or organization; a small number of components require changes. A small number of typos or grammatical errors are present. As a reviewer, you would expect that an editor or another reviewer could check the revision for the changes since they are minor and don't require your interpretation. |
| Major Revision | Content and/or presentation items are missing. The writing is not very clear, is not well organized, or is missing items. Substantial changes are required. A moderate to large number of typos or grammatical errors are present. As a reviewer, you would expect to review the revision to see how the authors addressed your concerns. |
| Unacceptable | The manuscript contents are deemed unacceptable because (a) There is no apparent pedagogical content; (b) Most or all of the content has been previously published; (c) The material is not sufficiently useful to the readers of JCE; (d) The manuscript contains inaccurate information; (e) The content may be useful but the presentation will require so many substantive changes that a fresh start is required; (f) Not suitable for other reasons. |
Comments
The descriptive text provides advice to the editors that ultimately serves as justification for the decision made by editor. The editors use the comments, together with their own evaluations to help formulate a decision. The decisions are not simply an "average" of the score. Value judgments about the scores are often based on the comments. For example, a very thorough review may uncover more issues of concern than the other reviewers. Therefore, a careful and thorough review that justifies a score is very valuable both to the editors but also to the authors who might wish to resubmit a revised manuscript.
Suggestions for reviewer comments:
- Be consistent with the score and comments;
- Provide justification even for the best or worst score: For example, "We might try this experiment in our analytical labs." is better than "I like this lab." but "This experiment combines two separation techniques with bio-organic molecules in a unique way that does not appear in the literature, making it something that we would use." says even more.
- Does the submission contain ALL of the required components? Are they written and organized as required in the guidelines?
- Check the previous literature both in JCE and other journals to see whether the authors have done a thorough literature search;
- Does the data make sense? Does it appear to have come from students? In the case of laboratory experiments, is there evidence that students in a course have performed the work?
- Are issues of safety and hazards addressed? A statement like, "There are no safety or hazard concerns with this manuscript." suggests that the reviewer considered safety.
