Reviewer Guidelines
The items below are intended to guide reviewers during the peer review process. If questions arise that are not fully addressed here, please contact the submission’s associate editor or the Editor in Chief.
Criteria for Determining Reviewer Suitability
- The reviewer has the disciplinary expertise to assess the quality of the research.
- The reviewer can provide a thorough and constructive review in a timely manner.
- The reviewer can communicate in a clear, professional way with the author and editors.
Criteria for Manuscript Acceptance
Original Research Papers and Subject-Area Reviews
- Research questions or hypotheses are clearly stated and relevant to the field of ecological engineering.
- Methodology is sound, study design is clearly described, and statistical methods are appropriate.
- Research is placed in context of current understanding of the field, relevant literature is cited and discussed, and findings are placed in the context of ecological engineering design.
- Organization is easy to follow and aids in understanding; language and presentation (spelling, grammar, and sentence structure) are clear and no egregious errors are present; inclusive and culturally sensitive language is used throughout.
Research Case Studies and Design Research Portfolios
- The project’s objectives are clearly stated and relevant to the field of ecological engineering.
- Methodology is sound; project design is clearly described including local/regional context.
- Visualizations are meaningful and add value to understanding of the project’s impact.
- Project is placed in context of current design practices, relevant literature is cited and discussed, and findings are placed in the context of ecological engineering design.
- Organization is easy to follow and aids in understanding; language and presentation (spelling, grammar, and sentence structure) are clear and no egregious errors are present; inclusive and culturally sensitive language is used throughout.
JEED-I: INSIGHTS Articles
- The article’s subject is clearly stated and relevant to the field of ecological engineering, and it advances the science and practice of ecological design.
- Visualizations are meaningful and add value to understanding of the subject matter.
- Original research or project outcomes, if included, have been condensed to share targeted findings that have relevance across the field.
- Synthesis or perspectives on emerging topics (such as innovations in teaching, stakeholder engagement, or environmental justice), if included, relate to ecological engineering.
- The subject is placed in context of current design practices and ecological engineering, and any relevant literature is cited and discussed.
- Organization is easy to follow and aids in understanding; language and presentation (spelling, grammar, and sentence structure) are clear and no egregious errors are present; inclusive and culturally sensitive language is used throughout.
Helpful Suggestions for Reviewers
- Ensure that the manuscript is rooted in the fundamentals of ecological engineering and informs ecological design. Also be sure to tailor your review to the type of paper that was submitted (JEED-I: INSIGHTS, research paper, subject-area review, research case study, or design research portfolio).
- Review the guidance detailed in Transparent Peer Review. Note that by submitting your review, you agree to the ultimate publication of your comments as part of the published manuscript, either anonymously or by name if you agree.
- The focus of the review should be on the published criteria. If the presentation (language, organization, clarity, or visualizations) is problematic and limits your ability to provide a thorough and rigorous review, please state your concerns rather than attempting to copyedit the manuscript.
- Prepare constructive and respectful comments and suggestions referencing the line numbers in the manuscript. Submit your review and comments using the form provided. You may also upload a Word document with tracked changes for minor edits or comments; please be certain your have anonymized your edits and comments in any uploaded files.
- Avoid inappropriate requests for citation of your own published papers.