Become a reviewer
Role & Function
The peer review process is central to the quality assurance and success of the Journal. Therefore, it is imperative that any individual volunteering to fulfil the role of Reviewer for the Journal is able to:
Conduct peer assessment of articles submitted to the Journal for publication (a minimum of two papers and usually not more than five papers per year) within the agreed timescales
Help to raise the profile of the Journal
Increase subscriptions and readership
Encourage submission of suitable articles for publication
Provide coaching/mentoring for inexperienced authors on request
Those who wish to be considered as Reviewers will need to have the following capabilities:-
To be committed to the aims and objectives of the Journal
Demonstrable expertise in an area of child care practice
Comprehensive understanding of the many aspects of child care practice
Current knowledge of local, national and international child care policy and developments
To have had their own work acknowledged through, for example, publications in relevant journals or professional publications; delivering papers at relevant conferences; involvement in the delivery of high level training; or written research or other reports of an appropriate standard
To maintain the quality of the Journal Reviewers, and particularly those who have not been involved previously in such activity, will normally be expected to take part in Reviewers Training Workshops organised by Child Care in Practice.
Guidance for Reviewers
The peer-review process is vital to maintaining and enhancing the professional status of the journal; it helps to ensure objectivity, lack of bias, and ultimately the quality standards now expected in Child Care in Practice publications.
The journal uses ScholarOne Manuscripts (formerly Manuscript Central) to peer review manuscript submissions. The assistant editor will send all invitations to review via the Child Care in Practice ScholarOne site. New reviewers can create an account here.
Comments Directed To The Authors Should Demonstrate That:
You have carefully and thoroughly read the article.
Your criticisms are objective, are not merely differences of opinion, and are intended to help the author improve his or her paper.
If in your judgment an article is poorly researched, poorly written, or poorly documented, write a critique that will uncover the weaknesses but also guide the author toward an acceptable revision or to an understanding of why the paper was not accepted.
While reviews are returned to the authors with the reviewer’s anonymity maintained please take into consideration that your comments to the author will be read by the author, the assistant editor, and in the event of conflicting opinions a member of the editorial board.
Finally, if the reviewer is aware that the article is essentially a duplicate or is highly similar to previously published work by different authors, they should immediately bring their concerns to the attention of the assistant editor.
Thank you for giving up your time voluntarily! I have found that most authors genuinely appreciate constructive criticism.