Left Navigation

:: Home :: Current / Past Issues :: Call for Manuscripts :: For Authors :: For Reviewers :: The Forum Board

On-line review form

Reviewer's Comments to Author

Please complete each section. If all sections are not completed, the form will not submit (except for optional responses).

Reviewer #:






(Providing your e-mail address verifies your identity in the review process. Your e-mail address will not be provided to the author.)


Comments to the author:
We recommend that you create your comments in a word processing program and copy and paste them into the box below. In the event the form does not submit properly, your comments will not be lost. The box below holds much more text than its size indicates, so do not feel constrained in drafting your review. When you click the "Submit" button, your responses are e-mailed to the editor. You must click the "Submit" button to send your responses, and you must complete all sections of the review before it can be submitted. You may find it helpful to review FFCI's call for papers.

  • A review should address the overall quality of the substance of the manuscript. Some questions to be addressed include:
    • What are the strengths of the manuscript?
    • What are the weaknesses of the manuscript?
    • Can the manuscript be improved?
    • If so, how?
    • If not, why not?
  • Comments and suggestions should be constructive and designed to help the author improve the quality of the manuscript even if your recommendation is not to publish. If the other reviewers recommend publishing the manuscript or if the author chooses to revise and resubmit for a second review, your constructive comments can help the author revise the manuscript.
  • While editorial comments are appreciated, the focus of the review should be on the content of the manuscript. Some questions that might be addressed include:
    • Is the content accurate?
    • Is the content balanced?
    • Did the author overlook alternative theories?
    • Are appropriate methods used in conducting the program, research, or evaluation?
    • Is there a need for the information among Extension agents, clientele, or professionals in Family and Consumer Sciences or related fields?
    • Is the information sufficiently practical in nature that it can be applied by the reader in decision making? If theoretical material is included, does it lead to a practical application? Can it be applied by professionals in their programming or other professional efforts?
    • Are there gaps in the information that would make it difficult for the reader to grasp the concepts and apply them?
  • To aid in your review, here are some questions that relate to how the material is presented. These questions are provided as guides only and are not intended to limit or restrict your review.
    • Does the introduction explain the value and advantages of the ideas presented in a sufficiently persuasive way to gain the reader's attention and interest?
    • Does all the information presented relate directly to the central points?
    • Are the ideas presented in a straightforward sequence that will help the reader gain understanding, beginning with the basics and leading to more complicated concepts or applications?
    • Has the author avoided unnecessarily complicated terms and sentence constructions?
    • Has the author conformed to acceptable standards of spelling, grammar, and punctuation?
  • Be specific. Broad generalizations are not instructive to either the editor or the author.
  • The review should support the recommendation. Negative recommendations not supported by specific concerns are not helpful.
  • The submitted review should be complete. Your submitted written review should contain all of the information necessary for the editor to make an informed decision about publishing the manuscript.
  • The time and effort you spend reviewing the manuscript is appreciated and serves a critical role in making FFCI a reliable and respected e-journal. THANK YOU!

Are there additional comments written on the manuscript that must be mailed to the author?


Reviewer's recommendation





 

Footer Nav