The paper you are assigned may have an evaluation form different from the three sectioned one shown above. Different evaluation forms are needed because there are many different kinds of academic papers. Different ISI journals accept different types of papers, including empirical research-based, qualitative research-based, mixed methods, case studies, theory-based, literature review or meta-study, policy reviews, concept papers, industry analysis, and likely other types as well. Each journal selects what types of papers it accepts and assigns it an evaluation form appropriate for that type of submission.

Some general issues apply to most types of submissions:

  • Clarity. The wording needs to be understandable for all readers, not just for specialists. The wording, punctuation, and grammar need to be correct. Do not fix this for the author; instead, point out several of the line numbers of sentences that have problems.
  • Development. The paper needs to move from one topic to the next in a logical way that is clear to understand.
  • Novelty. Does the paper contribute to science? Does it bring forth anything new?
  • Generalizability. If appropriate, are the findings or conclusions something that others might find useful?
  • Format. All ISI journals use APA style formatting. You need not deal with minor problems, but if you see a major problem (such as the paper citing Abraham Lincoln as Abraham, L.), please do note this in your review.
  • If you notice a similarity in the wording of the submission to that of other published works, please alert the paper’s Editor to look into possible plagiarism. 

We recommend that you carry out your readings of the paper in three stages: 

  • Scan the paper’s verbiage and the figures. Would a reader get the gist of the paper by scanning the figures and the headings?
  • Inspect for integration and coherence (development and flow) of the paper as a whole. Does the paper have paragraphs that spell out what it covers and have transition wording from one topic to the next?
  • And finally, a detailed reading of each section of the paper to check for accuracy, currency (is it up to date), logic, as well as readability.

As you read the paper, jot down comments on issues that occur to you. When you later enter your thoughts into the online evaluation form, you then can use copy and paste to enter those thoughts into the form. Be sure to include positive comments about the paper’s good points. 

Remember these points in composing your wording: 

  • Use constructive (not destructive) wording since you are writing for the author as a mentor. 
  • Maintain a balance (what is ‘right’ about the paper and what is ‘left’ to do to improve the paper; no submission is perfect, and none is without merit). 
  • Keep in mind that the journal’s readership crosses disciplines, so the paper must be clear. The purpose of the paper is to inform, not to impress. If you can’t understand the wording, other readers also will have problems, so in this case, the wording needs improvement. Let the author know what sections are unclear and, if you can, suggest better wording. 


Be sure to save your review (if you are not yet finished) or clicking the Submit Evaluation button when you are done. (See the figure below.)