Peer Reviewing Process
Nurture Journal of ELCA operates under a double-blind review process.
- The Editor-in-Chief will initially assess all contributions for publishing suitability for Nurture Journal of ELCA.
- The poor syntax is decidedly a matter of significant concern.
- The Editor-In-Chief is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. Editor-In-Chief’s decision is final.
(The views of Nurture Journal of ELCA Editorial Board members may be sought for further input towards this decision.)
Reviewer selection is critical to the review process, and the choice is, based on many factors, including:
To avoid unnecessary delay and upon receiving a manuscript, the esteemed Reviewer is expected to proceed to:
Confidentiality, Conflict of interest & Code of Ethics:
The “Double-Blind Basis.” Both the Reviewer and the Author are anonymous in this model.
Writing the review report
“The primary purpose of the reviewer report is to provide the editors with the information that they need to reach a decision. Still, they should also instruct the authors on how to strengthen their manuscript-including the language of the dissertation.”
Editing reviewer reports (please also check reviewers’ final checklist)
- As a matter of policy, editors do not suppress reviewer reports.
- Almost always, any comments intended for the authors are transmitted.
- On rare occasions, however, and where the Reviewer has made an apparent factual mistake or used offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information, editors interfere.
The ideal report should include:
- A closing paragraph that summarizes the significant findings and the Reviewer’s overall impressions and highlights substantial shortcomings of the manuscript.
- Specific numbered comments, which may be broken down into major and minor criticisms appropriate. (The numbering facilitates both the editor’s evaluation of the paper as well as the author rebuttal to the report)
The “report” should answer the following questions: (Excerpts)
- What are the major claims, and how significant are they?
- Are the claims novel and convincing?
- Are the applications appropriately discussed in the context of earlier literature?
- Who will be interested, and why?
- Does the paper stand out in some way from the others in its field?
- Are there other experiments that would strengthen the writing?
For manuscripts that may merit further consideration pending acceptance:
It would also be helpful, should reviewers provide advice on the following points where appropriate (in the remarks section of their checklist):
- How the clarity of the writing might be improved.
- How the manuscript might be shortened.
- How to do the study justice without overselling the claims.
- How to represent earlier literature more fairly.
- How to improve the presentation of methodological detail so that the experiments can be reproduced.
Besides objective scientific appraisal, such report should not include any recommendation regarding publication, which is considered “disclosing confidential information” since the final decision regarding acceptance, revision or rejection rests with the editors.
One can assure those illustrious reviewers undoubtedly enrich the scientific and publication processes from all of the above.
The ‘Reviewer Checklist’
This is quite a valuable tool for all parties. We kindly call on reviewers to, please, use it
Comments for transmission to the authors
Timing of Response