This guide is intended to support both new reviewers and experienced reviewers by answering common questions and clarifying Osaka JALT Journal’s (OJJ) expectations.
Whether this is your first time reviewing or you have reviewed many papers before, you may occasionally wonder what is expected of you, how detailed your comments should be, or what to do when something about a manuscript is unclear. This guide aims to make the process a little easier. It brings together some of the questions reviewers commonly have, along with practical advice for approaching a review.
Writing a Review
There is no single way to write a good review. Different reviewers will notice different things and may have different perspectives on a manuscript. Our aim is for reviews to be fair, constructive, respectful, and useful to authors. A strong review can recommend major revisions, minor revisions or even rejection while still being helpful and respectful.
A good review does not have to identify every possible problem. A good review should help the author see what is working well in their manuscript, what could be strengthened, and where further explanation or revision may be needed.
A good review is:
Constructive
Point out problems, but also help the author see how they might be addressed. If something is unclear, explain what is unclear and, where possible, suggest what additional explanation or evidence might help.
Specific
Avoid comments such as “This section is weak” or “The paper needs more detail.” Explain what is missing and where the problem occurs. For example:
“The connection between the research question and the discussion of the results is not yet clear. It could help to return to the research question explicitly when interpreting the findings.”
Balanced
Identify strengths as well as weaknesses. Authors need to know what they are doing well and what they should preserve as they revise.
Focused on the manuscript
Comments should be focused on the argument, evidence, methodology, organization, contribution, clarity, and other relevant aspects of the submission, not on the author’s ability, experience, or intentions.
Prioritized
Not every problem has the same importance. Make it clear which issues are essential to address and which are smaller suggestions. A short list of important, well-explained comments is often more useful for writers than a very long list of minor corrections.
Respectful and Evidence-Based
Academic disagreement is part of scholarly work, and reviewers are encouraged to raise substantive concerns about a manuscript’s focus, methodology, interpretation, or findings. However, these concerns should be based on the manuscript itself and explained with clear reasoning or evidence. Comments that dismiss, attack, or question the focus or findings of a paper without a clear basis are not helpful to authors or editors. If a review contains significant unsupported criticism, the reviewer may be asked by the editorial team to clarify the basis for their comments or to reconsider them.
Actionable
Whenever possible, give the author a sense of what they could do next. You should not rewrite the manuscript for them, rather your comments should be clear enough that the author can understand the concern and consider how to respond to it.
A simple way to think about each comment
Before submitting your review, consider whether your main comments answer three questions:
- What is the issue with this section of the manuscript?
- Why is this something the writer should address?
- What could the writer do that might help address it?
For example:
Less helpful:
“The literature review needs work.”
More helpful:
“The literature review provides useful background, but the connection between the studies discussed and the current research question is not yet clear. Consider making this connection more explicit and explaining how the present study builds on or differs from the previous research.”
The second comment gives the author something they can actually work with.
A Final Note for Novice Reviewers
Finally, please remember that you are not expected to know everything or to solve every problem in a manuscript. If something falls outside your expertise, you are unsure about a review requirement, or you are concerned about a particular issue, please get in touch with the editorial team. It is always better to ask when you are unsure than to feel that you have to figure it out on your own.
You do not need to find everything.
Reviewers are not expected to identify every typo, rewrite every sentence, or anticipate every possible way a paper could be improved. Your role is to use your expertise to identify the issues that matter most.
If you are reviewing a manuscript for the first time, it can be helpful to ask yourself:
- What is the paper trying to do, and what is its main contribution?
- Is the purpose, research question, or main argument clear?
- Does it engage appropriately with relevant literature?
- Is the methodology or approach appropriate, clearly explained, and sufficiently justified?
- Are the analysis, findings, and conclusions supported by the evidence?
- Does the organization help the reader follow the argument?
- Are there important gaps, limitations, or questions that need to be addressed?
- What does the paper do particularly well?
- What are the two or three most important changes that would strengthen the paper?
If your review helps the editor understand the manuscript and gives the author a clear and fair sense of how the work could be strengthened, you have done your job.
FAQ
Sections
Understanding and Reviewing the Manuscript
Reviewing Evidence, Sources, and Copyrighted Material
Confidentiality and Professional Conduct
| Before Starting | |
| What if I do not feel confident reviewing the manuscript? | You do not need to be an expert in every aspect of a manuscript. Usually, you can review the aspects that fall within your expertise and identify areas that require editorial or specialist attention. If you feel that you are unable to provide a fair and useful review, please let the OJJ team know within 48–72 hours of receiving the assignment. |
| What if I know the author? | Please inform the editorial team if you recognize the author or have a close professional, personal, or supervisory relationship with them. Depending on the relationship, this may constitute a conflict of interest. You should not contact the author directly about the possible conflict of interest. |
| What if I attended the author’s presentation (in the case of conference proceedings)? | Please inform the OJJ team. If you attended the presentation or have previously seen a substantially similar version of the work, and are unsure if you can provide a fair review, the editors will determine whether you can still provide an impartial review. When in doubt, disclose the connection. |
| What counts as a conflict of interest? | Potential conflicts include close personal or professional relationships with the author, collaboration with the author, institutional relationships, financial interests, direct competition, or any other circumstance that could reasonably affect (or appear to affect) your impartiality. If you are unsure, disclose the situation to the OJJ team. |
| Can I use AI or other tools to help me review a manuscript? | Do not upload or paste an unpublished manuscript, reviewer comments, or other confidential submission materials into external AI tools or services unless the author has provided consent and OJJ has explicitly authorized their use and provided appropriate guidance. Review materials are confidential. If you are unsure whether a tool is permitted, ask the OJJ team before using it. |
| Understanding and Reviewing the Manuscript | |
| How do I know what kind of article I am reviewing? | The author has indicated the intended article type during submission, such as research, teaching practice, theoretical/conceptual work, or another category defined by the journal. The OJJ team should provide information about the type of article to be reviewed as well as the corresponding review form or rubric in the request email. If the manuscript appears to have been assigned the wrong category, please contact the editors rather than using a different rubric yourself. |
| Do I need to read the whole manuscript before completing the review? | Yes. A complete review requires an overall understanding of the manuscript. You may read strategically (for example, beginning with the abstract, introduction, and conclusion) but your final evaluation should be based on the manuscript as a whole, after reading the manuscript in its entirety. |
| Should I focus mainly on finding problems? | No. An effective review identifies both strengths and areas for development. You may begin by considering what the manuscript does well. Then identify the most important issues that need attention. Prioritize substantive issues over minor stylistic preferences. |
| What is the difference between a major and a minor problem? | A major issue affects the central argument, research design, interpretation, evidence, organization, or contribution of the manuscript and may require substantial revision. A minor issue is something that can usually be corrected without changing the central argument, for example, an unclear sentence, inconsistent terminology, formatting problem, or small referencing issue. |
| How much should I comment on language use? | Comment on language when it affects clarity, accuracy, readability, or the reader’s ability to understand the argument. Please avoid rewriting the manuscript sentence by sentence. The primary purpose of peer review is to evaluate the manuscript’s scholarly contribution and quality. Please also keep in mind that English may be a second or even third language for many of our contributors.If you notice repeated minor errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, or word choice, you do not need to identify every instance. Instead, flag the pattern and advise the author to check the manuscript specifically for that issue. For example: “There are repeated issues with article use throughout the manuscript. Please review the manuscript for consistency in this area.” |
| What if the manuscript makes a claim that I think is unsupported? | Explain clearly what evidence or reasoning appears to be missing. Where appropriate, suggest the type of evidence, clarification, or engagement with literature that could strengthen the claim. Avoid simply stating that the author is “wrong” without explaining why you think so. |
| What if I disagree with the author’s theoretical perspective or interpretation? | Distinguish between legitimate academic disagreement and a genuine scholarly problem. Focus your comments on the evidence, reasoning, methodology, relevant literature, and implications, and not on whether you personally agree with the author. Authors may reasonably take theoretical positions or interpret evidence differently from you. Within reason, differences in perspective should not by themselves be grounds for rejection. However, reviewers should raise concerns when a central claim is unsupported, poorly reasoned, contradicted by the evidence, ethically problematic, or inconsistent with established research or professional standards. |
| Reviewing Evidence, Sources, and Copyrighted Material | |
| What should I do if the manuscript contains an image, table, diagram, or other material taken from another source? | Check whether the source is appropriately acknowledged. Material reproduced or adapted from another publication may require attribution and, depending on the material and its copyright status, permission from the copyright holder. If you notice a possible copyright or attribution issue, flag it for the editors rather than attempting to resolve the legal question yourself. |
| Can authors reproduce sections of textbooks, articles, tests, or other copyrighted materials? | Authors should obtain permission when required and provide appropriate attribution. Reviewers should flag substantial reproduced material, unattributed figures, tables, questionnaires, or other materials that appear to come from another source. The editorial team will determine what action is necessary. |
| What if I recognize material from another publication? | Do not accuse the author of plagiarism in your comments. You should flag the entire section/s for the editorial team. Provide the editors with enough information for them to investigate the concern. |
| What if I recognize material as being self-plagiarised or reused from the author’s previous work? | If you recognize substantial text, data, figures, tables, or ideas from the author’s previous work, consider whether there is a clear scholarly reason for the material to be repeated. Some overlap may be appropriate, for example, when a study is being extended, reanalysed, replicated, or developed in a clearly identifiable way. However, if material appears to be reproduced without a clear reason, meaningful progression, or additional contribution, please flag this to the editorial team. Where possible, provide the details of the earlier publication so the editors can assess the extent and nature of the overlap. Do not make a definitive accusation of self-plagiarism in your review or contact the author directly. The editorial team will determine whether the overlap is acceptable and whether further action is needed. |
| Do I have to check every reference? | You are not expected to verify every reference. However, you should notice obvious problems, such as references that do not appear to support the claims being made, missing key sources in the reference list, inconsistent citations, or references that appear inaccurate or inappropriate. |
| Writing the Review | |
| How should I phrase criticism? | Focus on the manuscript, not the author. Keep your comments about what the paper says or does rather than making judgments about the writer. For example, instead of saying “The author does not understand X,” explain what is unclear: “The explanation of X is not clear in this section.” Instead of “This is poorly written,” point to the problem: “I found the connection between these two paragraphs difficult to follow.” This makes your feedback more specific, fair, and useful to the author. |
| Do I need to explain how authors can fix every problem? | Where possible, yes, and especially particularly for major concerns. A useful review does more than identify a weakness; it helps the author understand what would make the manuscript stronger. You do not need to always provide a potential solution yourself, but a clear suggestion or question can be very helpful during the revision process. |
| How many comments should I make? | Quality is more important than quantity. A very long review is not necessarily a better review. Prioritize the issues that are most important for improving the manuscript. If you identify many small problems, consider grouping them together rather than overwhelming the author with a long list of minor corrections. |
| Do I have to comment on every spelling, grammar, or formatting error? | Generally, it is not required. If there are only occasional errors, mention the issue generally and provide a few representative examples. If language problems substantially interfere with comprehension, flag the issue and relay your concerns clearly to the editorial team. |
| What if I think the manuscript could eventually be publishable but needs major revisions? | Identify and explain what would need to change. Identify the most important revisions first and distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions. The purpose is to help the editors and authors understand whether the manuscript has a realistic pathway toward publication. If you believe there are significant issues, but they can be resolved through significant edits, then you can recommend major revisions. |
| What if I recommend rejection? | If, after careful consideration, you feel that the issues with manuscript cannot be resolved with major revisions, you may recommend rejection. Explain the reasons clearly and professionally. A recommendation of rejection should be based on substantive concerns related to the manuscript’s contribution to the field, evidence, methodology, argument, or other relevant criteria. |
| Do I have to follow the rubric? | Yes. The rubric is there to make sure that the key aspects of the manuscript are considered and that reviews are reasonably consistent across reviewers. However, it is a guide, not a checklist. Use your professional judgment when applying the criteria. If a particular criterion is not relevant to the manuscript, you do not need to force a comment on it. Similarly, if you notice an important issue that is not covered by the rubric, please raise it. |
| What if I recommend “accept with revisions” but another reviewer recommends “reject”? | This is normal in peer review. Reviewers are not expected to reach identical conclusions. The editorial team considers all reviews, the manuscript, and the journal’s criteria before making a decision. Do not change your recommendation simply because you think another reviewer might disagree with you. |
| What is the difference between my comments to the author and my recommendation to the editor? | Your comments to the author should provide clear, constructive feedback that helps the author understand the strengths of the manuscript and what could be improved. Keep the focus on the manuscript and give specific reasons for your comments wherever possible. Your confidential comments to the editorial team are for matters that the editor may need to consider but that are not necessarily appropriate to share with the author. These might include a potential conflict of interest, concerns about plagiarism or duplicate publication, ethical concerns, or other issues that may require further investigation.Your recommendation should be consistent with the concerns raised in your review. However, not every concern needs to be repeated in the comments to the author. If you believe an issue requires confidential editorial attention, explain it fully to the editorial team and allow the editors to decide how it should be handled. |
| Confidentiality and Professional Conduct | |
| Can I discuss or share the manuscript with a colleague? | Not without permission from the editorial team. Manuscripts under review are confidential. If you believe another person’s expertise is needed, contact the OJJ team first rather than sharing the manuscript independently. |
| Can I contact the author directly about revisions or questions I have? | Generally, no. All communication about the manuscript should normally go through the editorial team. This protects both authors and reviewers and maintains the integrity of the review process. |
| Can I use ideas from a manuscript I am reviewing in my own work if the fields are similar? | No. Information, ideas, data, arguments, or findings obtained through peer review must remain confidential and should not be used for your own research or professional advantage. |
| What if I cannot finish the review by the deadline? | Contact the OJJ team as soon as you know there might be a delay. Do not wait until the deadline has passed. Additionally, let the OJJ team know when you expect to be able to complete the review so they can decide whether to extend the deadline or reassign the manuscript. |
| Advice for Novice Reviewers | |
| I have never reviewed for a journal before. Where should I start? | Begin by reading the manuscript once or twice for overall understanding. Then read it again using the review rubric. Take notes on the manuscript’s purpose, main argument, contribution, evidence, organization, and areas that need clarification. Finally, organize your comments into major issues, minor issues, and overall recommendations. |
| Am I expected to know all about peer review if I applied to be a reviewer? | No. New reviewers are encouraged to ask questions and seek guidance from the OJJ team. |
| Can I recommend specific articles that the author should cite? | Yes, if they are genuinely relevant and would strengthen the manuscript. However, please be careful when recommending your own work or papers from an affilated author, journal, or research group, as this could be perceived as a conflict of interest or an attempt to inflate citation counts. Only recommend sources that have a clear scholarly connection to the manuscript and give the author a genuine reason to consider citing them. Where possible, briefly explain why a recommended source is relevant rather than simply providing a list of citations. |
| How do I avoid letting my own preferences influence my review? | Before making a criticism, ask yourself: Is this a genuine problem with the manuscript, or is this simply how I would have done it? If it is a genuine problem, explain why it matters and support your comment with evidence or reasoning. If it is simply your preferred approach, consider presenting it as an optional suggestion rather than a required revision. |
| What happens after I submit my review? | The OJJ team will consider your review alongside the other reviews, the manuscript, and the journal’s criteria, and notify the author of the OJJ team’s decision as well as pass on the reviewer comments. The editors make the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection. You may be contacted if they need clarification about a comment or recommendation. |
| Will I see the other reviewers’ comments? | Yes. In principle, reviewers will be able to view the other reviewers’ comments as part of the review process. For novice reviewers who are paired with an experienced reviewer, usually the experienced reviewer will also be available to help explain particular decisions, comments, or approaches to the review. This provides an opportunity for newer reviewers to learn from the process while still making their own independent assessment of the manuscript. |
| What if the manuscript is revised and sent back to me? | If you are asked to review a revised version, focus on whether the authors have adequately addressed the concerns you raised in the previous review. You do not need to repeat your entire original review. Identify which concerns have been addressed and which, if any, still require attention. |
| What if the authors did not make a change that I requested? | Consider whether the authors have provided a reasonable explanation for their decision. Authors do not necessarily have to follow every reviewer’s suggestion. If you still believe the issue is important, explain why with reference to the author’s explanation for why they did not follow the suggestion. |
| Can I discuss the paper with friends or colleagues after the review process is finished? | Once the manuscript is published, you can of course discuss the published work itself as you would any other academic publication. However, OJJ asks that you please continue to respect the confidentiality of the review process. Do not share or discuss your review comments, the other reviewers’ comments, editorial discussions or decisions, confidential correspondence, or information from the manuscript that was not publicly available. You should also avoid discussing who reviewed the manuscript or speculating about how individual reviewers or editors voted or recommended. |
| Can I cite the manuscript or ideas from it after it is published? | Once the work is published, you may engage with it as you would with other published research. However, any ideas or information you learned through the confidential review process should not be used to gain an advantage before they become publicly available. |
| Will I receive feedback on my reviewing? | Where appropriate, the editorial team may provide feedback, reviewer training, or examples of strong reviews. Reviewers who consistently provide thoughtful, constructive, and well-supported reviews may also be invited to become an Assistant Editor. |
| What if I realize after submitting my review that I made a mistake? | Let the editorial team know as soon as possible. Reviewers are human, and occasionally an important detail may be overlooked or a comment may need clarification. It is much better to tell the editors you realise you missed something than to leave them working with information you know to be incorrect. |