Manuscripts are reviewed on two levels: General and Specific.
In the body of the manuscript, please make editorial suggestions using either a Yellow highlighting feature found in Microsoft Word and Corel WordPerfect, or bold font (preferably a larger size than that used by the author). This will allow us to email your suggestions directly back to the author.
When you complete your review please return to us:
We look forward to providing a useful and professional publication for school counselors and we appreciate your contribution to this effort. If you have any questions, please contact us.
Does the paper relate a cohesive argument?
Are the ideas clearly presented?
Does the title characterize the manuscript?
Is the writing concise and easy to follow?
Is paper written in APA style?
What portions of the paper should be expanded? Removed? Condensed? Summarized? Combined?
Abstract and Introduction
Do the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the points made in the paper?
Is the literature review comprehensive?
Does the literature review contain a coherent argument supported by literature (as opposed to a list of studies)?
Does the author describe implications for school counselors?
Does the author describe limitations of the research or drawbacks to the method or position described?
Directions for Future Research
Does the author describe further need/areas for research or expansion of ideas?
Publish this manuscript in its present form (i.e., no revisions necessary).
Accept with revisions
This indicates that the paper will be accepted for publication provided the recommended revisions are made. State whether the revisions are minor or major in scope. Revisions should not significantly change the methodology or content of the paper. Papers in this category normally require:
In this category, you may include a section entitled Required Changes; which outlines changes that are essential for the revised paper to be accepted. You may also choose to include a section entitled Issues for your Consideration; which outlines areas that could be improved but are not essential for publication.
Do not accept, but resubmission is encouraged
The material may be worthy of publication in the journal following substantial revision. The needed revisions are extensive enough to warrant resubmission as a new paper.
Do not accept, resubmission is discouraged
The material is not suitable for publication in the journal. Papers are often rejected for reasons such as:
If it is more suitable for publication in another journal, please state the name of the journal.
Methods for studies involving primary data collection
Does the author provide enough detail of the methodology?
Are the methods described clearly enough to facilitate replication (where applicable)?
Is there a sound research methodology?
Are the methods appropriate?
Rationale & Research Question
Is there sufficient rationale for the study?
Is the question under study clearly identified?
Could the design be conveyed more easily?
Are the data clearly presented?
Can the reported results be verified easily by reference to tables and/or figures?
Would another form of presentation help?
Are illustrations instructive?
Are all tables and figures clearly labeled, necessary, and well-planned?
Analysis and Interpretation
Are the analyses appropriate, logical, and described in enough detail?
Does the organization of results promote understanding?
Are the discussion and conclusions made by the author supported by the data?
Does the writer understand the limitations of the study?
Is there enough breadth and depth in the implications of the study?