For Reviewers

The Journal of Social Work Education and Practice (JSWEP) Editorial Team cordially invites you to join our esteemed panel of reviewers. As a reviewer, you will play a crucial role in upholding the high standards of the JSWEP by carefully evaluating manuscripts and providing valuable feedback to authors and editors.

To register as a reviewer for the JSWEP, simply access our online submission and peer review system. If you already have an existing account with the journal as an author or reader, kindly follow the instructions under the "I Already Have an Account with the Journal" section. If you have not yet registered with the JSWEP, please refer to the "I Have Not Yet Registered with the Journal" section to initiate the registration process.

Updating Profile

We extend our heartfelt gratitude for your invaluable contribution to the peer review process of the Journal of Social Work Education and Practice (JSWEP). Your unwavering support helps us maintain the exceptional standards of the journal.

To ensure our system is up to date with your most current contact information and reviewing interests, we highly recommend that you update your profile frequently. This practice will enhance the efficiency of our matching system, linking you with manuscripts that are well-aligned with your expertise and boost your chances of being invited to review.

To update your profile, log in to your account. Once you have signed in, locate the person icon in the top right-hand corner of your user dashboard and select "Edit Profile" from the pull-down menu. Next, navigate to the "Roles" tab on the profile page, enter (or update) your reviewing interests, and click "save."

Review Process and Instructions

Review Proces

The manuscript submission and peer review process for our journal is a structured and well-organized system consisting of the following sequential steps:

Step 1: The author submits a manuscript for consideration. Step 2: If the manuscript meets the initial screening criteria, it is assigned to potential reviewers by the editors. Step 3: The assigned reviewers evaluate the manuscript thoroughly and provide their feedback. Step 4: Based on the reviewers' feedback, the editors make a decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript and send a decision letter to the author outlining the reasons for the decision.

Our aim is to ensure that each manuscript is reviewed meticulously and judiciously and that authors receive constructive feedback that will help them improve their work.

Invitation to Review

As a reviewer, you will be informed of a review request either through an email notification or by checking your dashboard on our online submission and peer review system. Upon receiving the request, it is essential that you promptly read the editor's email, which may include the article abstract, to confirm whether the manuscript's subject matter aligns with your area of expertise and if you can complete the review within the stated deadline.

To accept or decline the invitation to review, please visit the submission URL provided in the review request email from the editor.

If you choose to decline the request to review, we kindly request that you indicate the reason for your decision. If possible, we would appreciate it if you could recommend a colleague who could review the manuscript. The editor may then send an invitation to review that individual. Please note that it is not possible to transfer your invitation to review the manuscript to a colleague.

If you accept the request to review, please review the manuscript thoroughly to identify any potential conflicts of interest. If you have a conflict of interest or a time constraint, please contact the assigned editor for guidance. The editor may extend your deadline or cancel the review assignment if deemed necessary.

Navigating the System

As a reviewer, you will be notified of the review request via email. Upon receiving the request, you may access the system in two ways. If you remember your login details, you may log in to the system from the Journal's homepage. Alternatively, you may click on the SUBMISSION URL link provided in the review request email, which will take you directly to the manuscript without the need for login credentials.

Once you have accessed the system, you will see your dashboard. To find the manuscript assigned to you, locate the title from the "My Queue" list. Clicking on the "View" button next to the article title will take you to the "Request" page, where you can find additional information about the request and the manuscript. If you prefer, you may also access the "Request" page directly by clicking on the SUBMISSION URL in the review request email, which will bypass the need to log in to the system.

Review Steps

The peer review process is a multi-step process that involves the following four steps:

Step 1: Request

The first step is to receive the request via email, which includes details of the article, submission information, review timelines, and an option to accept or decline the request. If you accept the request, you will move to step 2. If you decline, you will be removed from the process.

Step 2: Guidelines

The Reviewer Guidelines provide recommendations and instructions for conducting a manuscript review. It is recommended to review the guidelines of the article category provided in the Author Guidelines.

Step 3: Download & Review

In this step, the Reviewer downloads the manuscript files and provides review comments. For Original Research, Reviews, Short Reports, Guidelines, and Perspectives, a web-based “Review Form” is used. The form guides the Reviewer through a series of questions to rate the quality and suitability of the manuscript. Reviewers must provide comments explaining their ratings and provide specific comments for each rating.

To maintain the integrity of the blind review process, personal identifying information should be removed from any additional files uploaded.

Once the review is complete, the Reviewer makes a recommendation to the Editor (e.g., accept the submission, revisions required, resubmit for review, decline) using the dropdown menu and clicks “Submit Review” to confirm.

Step 4: Completion

Upon submission, the Reviewer receives a final confirmation screen, notifying them that the review has been successfully received by the Editors. The review is now complete.

General Policies and Procedures

To ensure consistency in the review process, all reviewers must complete an online review form for specific manuscript types, including Original Research, Reviews, Short Reports, Guidelines, and Perspectives. Reviewers for other article types should enter their review in two open text boxes labelled "for author and editor" and "for editor."

Manuscripts are submitted electronically via Open Journal Systems (OJS) and undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief for relevancy to aging research, suitability for the Journal's focus and scope, and academic quality. Papers that pass the initial assessment are assigned to an Editor and sent for Peer Review. All manuscripts at this stage, except for Guest Editorials, Letters to the Editor, and Book Reviews, are sent for review and at least two reports per manuscript are collected. Reviewers are given three weeks to complete their review, with possible extensions granted upon request.

This Journal employs a double-blind review process, where the reviewers' identities are concealed from the authors and the author's identity is not provided to the reviewers. Upon receiving an invitation to review, reviewers should read the Editor's request email, which includes the article abstract and any additional notes from the Editors, to determine whether the subject falls within their area of expertise and whether they can meet the review timeline. If reviewers have a conflict of interest or time constraints, they should contact the assigning Editor for instructions.

Reviews must be kept confidential, and manuscripts under review cannot be disclosed to a third party. Reviewers who wish to solicit an opinion from a colleague must first seek permission from the Editor. Reviewers are reminded that the article provided for review is privileged and must remain confidential. They should not cite the article or use its contents in their own research or discussions with colleagues before publication.

In the box labelled "for author," reviewers should provide overall comments about the article, including a summary of the major findings, their overall impression of the paper, and any major shortcomings. Specific comments can be numbered and separated into major and minor points. If reviewers are asked to complete an online review form, they do not need to duplicate comments in the overall comments to the author if they have already entered them under specific categories.

To maintain the integrity of the double-blind review process, reviewers must ensure that personal identifying information is removed from all files before uploading them and from comments entered in the review form. Any confidential remarks, including suspected conflicts of interest, misconduct, plagiarism, or other concerns, should be entered in the box labelled "for editor."

Reviewers should advise the Editor of their recommendation for acceptance, revision, or rejection by selecting the appropriate option in the pulldown menu. However, the final decision rests solely with the Editors, and reviewers should not state their recommendation in the portion of the review that will be sent to the author. After completing the review, reviewers should click the "Submit Review" button, and it will be saved in their account within the OJS system. To avoid any computer errors, it is recommended that reviewers compose their review in their usual word processor and then copy/paste it into the form.

The Review Process

When reviewing an article submitted to JSWEP, it is important to adopt a positive, impartial, and critical attitude towards the article. The aim is to promote accurate and relevant scientific communication while encouraging the community of contributing authors. It is important to note that comments should be professional and constructive, and not demeaning or personal, even when critical.

Reviewers are expected to consider the following aspects when reviewing Original Research, Review, Short Report, Guideline or Perspective article types, where applicable: significance, originality, adequacy of title, abstract, and introduction, methodology and design, results, discussion and soundness of conclusions and interpretation, references, appropriateness of tables and figures, writing quality, organization, adherence to Author Guidelines, adherence to the Journal’s Editorial Policies for Authors, and priority rating for publication. Reviewers are required to provide ratings based on these categories, along with specific comments explaining their ratings. Reviewers are also encouraged to provide overall comments for the author and editor (optional).

For an open-text review, reviewers are expected to consider the significance of the manuscript to the field of aging research, originality, appropriateness of the approach or evaluation/assessment, appropriateness of the statistical analyses, adherence to correct scientific nomenclature, adequacy of experimental techniques or pedagogical approach, soundness of conclusions and interpretation, organization, adherence to Author Guidelines, adherence to the Journal’s Editorial Policies for Authors, adequacy of title and abstract, appropriate literature citations, appropriateness of figures and tables, length, general tone, and readability.

Reviewers are not expected to correct deficiencies of style or grammar, as this will be completed in the copyediting stage if the manuscript is accepted for publication. However, reviewers are encouraged to critique and comment on the writing and grammar if it will make the paper more readable and understandable.

Lastly, although the Editors of JSWEP may be able to detect violations of publication policy or ethical conduct after publication, reviewers are expected to detect such problems before publication. Reviewers are required to communicate any suspicions of policy or ethical issues directly to the assigned Editor for investigation and resolution. The Journal’s publication policies are described in the Author Guidelines (see “Editorial Policies for Authors”).

Reviewer's Recommendation

As a Reviewer, it is important to suggest the acceptability of an article on the review form, which includes options such as accepting the submission, requiring revisions, declining the submission, or suggesting resubmission elsewhere. However, it is important to note that editorial decisions are usually based on multiple evaluations, so not all recommendations may be honored. The default options for JSWEP's Reviewers include accepting the submission as is, requiring minor revisions, suggesting resubmission with serious problems corrected, recommending resubmission elsewhere, or declining the submission due to major flaws. If none of these options apply, Reviewers can leave comments for the Editors explaining their concerns. After revisions by the authors, the Editors may request a reassessment by the Reviewer to ensure all points have been addressed adequately.