The peer reviewer code, and editors’ expectations

This code sets out how Mtandao expects reviewers to work, across AJSW, JDA, SINCCD and the Journal of Ubuntu alike. It is a short set of commitments, not a checklist to complete once, they apply to every review you undertake.

Do your own reading, thinking and commenting

Do not throw a manuscript into an AI tool and pass its output off as your review. Read the manuscript yourself, think about it yourself, and write your comments yourself. This is the same standard AJSW holds authors to, and reviewers are expected to meet it too. Your value as a reviewer is your own expert judgement, not a summary generated by a tool that has not engaged with the manuscript’s argument.

Leave grammar, language and formatting to others

Do not spend your review focused on grammar, spelling, punctuation or formatting. This work belongs to copy editors and type setters later in the publishing process. Your role is to assess the substance, the theory, the methods, the ethics, the evidence and the argument. A review that only corrects sentence structure has not done the job of peer review.

Be fair, critical, constructive and firm

Do not be harsh to writers. Be fair in how you weigh strengths against weaknesses, critical in the sense of applying real scrutiny, constructive in offering the author a way to improve the work, and firm where a manuscript genuinely does not meet the standard required. These qualities are not in tension with each other. A firm review can still be respectful, and a constructive review can still recommend rejection where that is the honest conclusion.

Plan your reviewing year

Create a peer review plan for the year. Decide which journals you are willing to review for among AJSW, JDA, SINCCD and the Journal of Ubuntu, and how many manuscripts you can realistically take on. Six manuscripts a year across the journals you support is a fair benchmark for most reviewers, balanced against your other professional commitments. Planning ahead means you can accept invitations with confidence rather than accepting more than you can deliver on time.

Comment on every part of the manuscript

A thorough review addresses each part of the manuscript in turn, with a specific critical comment for each, not a single general impression. Cover title, abstract, introduction and background, theory, ethics, methods and data collection, analysis, discussion, implications, and references. Close with a major critical comment on the manuscript as a whole, drawing these individual observations together into an overall judgement.

When you are not sure, find out

If you are uncertain about a theory, a method, a statistical approach, or a claim made in the manuscript, do not guess. Read the relevant sources yourself, or consult another expert in that area, while keeping the manuscript and the author’s identity confidential. An honest gap in your own knowledge is not a weakness, submitting a review built on a guess is.

Keep to timelines, and say no early

Keep to the timelines you agree with the editor. If you cannot complete a review within the requested window, or you realise partway through that you cannot finish, tell the editor as early as possible rather than letting the deadline pass in silence. Saying no early, before you accept an invitation you cannot honour, keeps the process moving for the author and the editor. A late withdrawal is far more disruptive than a prompt decline.

What editors expect of you

Editors are not only checking your comments on the manuscript, they are also forming a view of you as a reviewer. They expect a prompt response to the invitation, whichever way it goes, a review that engages properly with the questions in Lesson 6 rather than a few brief lines, a clear recommendation with reasoning behind it, and comments written in a tone the editor could pass on to the author without needing to soften it first. Reviewers who consistently meet these expectations are the ones invited again, and the ones considered for editorial roles.