JMSACL

Contact
Email Alerts

Details
- Overview
- Submit Manuscript
Tools
- DOI Checker
Reviewers
Editorial Structure
Publisher
- Elsevier > Stanford
Resources
- JMSACL OJS Workflow
- Review Form

Resources

JMSACL OJS Workflow
Review Form

MSACL Review Form for Research Articles and Short Reports

This form is automatically selected for Research Articles and Short reports. You can unselect it if you desire.

You can also apply it to other submission types, but it must be manually selected.

The reviewer can also upload documents. These can include either: (1) versions of the manuscript with tracked changes and/or comments (remove any identifying information), and/or (2) standard reviews.

All information submitted, except comments to the editor (the last form field), is forwarded to the author anonymously.

Does the manuscript contribute new knowledge to the field?

Please note that all information you provide from this point on, except any confidential notes to the editor, will be sent to the author anonymously.

Yes – Significant and original contribution
Mostly – Some new contribution with moderate originality
Somewhat – Incremental or context-dependent contribution
Minimally – Limited or unclear contribution
No – No discernible contribution Comment (contributes new knowledge to the field)

Is the research question clearly defined and relevant? Yes – Clearly defined and highly relevant
Mostly – Defined with minor ambiguity, generally relevant
Somewhat – Partially defined or marginally relevant
Minimally – Vague or weakly relevant
No – Not defined or irrelevant Comments (research question defined and relevant)

Does the manuscript align with the journal’s scope and standards? Yes – Clearly defined and highly relevant
Mostly – Defined with minor ambiguity, generally relevant
Somewhat – Partially defined or marginally relevant
Minimally – Vague or weakly relevant
No – Not defined or irrelevant Comments (alignment with journal scope and standards)

Are the methods appropriate, reproducible, and well-documented? Yes – Clearly appropriate and fully reproducible
Mostly – Appropriate with minor gaps or ambiguities
Somewhat – Partially appropriate or inconsistently documented
Minimally – Weakly appropriate or poorly documented
No – Inappropriate or non-reproducible Comments (methods)

Is the data analysis sound, with proper statistical validation? Yes – Clearly sound and statistically validated
Mostly – Sound with minor issues or omissions
Somewhat – Partially sound or inconsistently validated
Minimally – Weak or questionable validation
No – Unsound or invalid
Cannot assess due to lack of expertise in field. Comments (data analysis)

Are there any missing controls or biases that should be addressed? No – No significant issues; controls are comprehensive and bias minimized
Minimally – Minor omissions or low-impact biases
Somewhat – Partial controls or moderate biases present
Mostly – Weak controls or evident biases
Yes – Major missing controls or pervasive bias Comments (missing controls or biases)

Do the results support the conclusions drawn by the authors? Yes – Clearly supported and well-justified
Mostly – Supported with minor overreach or ambiguity
Somewhat – Partially supported or weakly connected
Minimally – Weakly supported or inconsistently reasoned
No – Unsupported or contradicted Comments (results support conclusions)

Are the figures and tables clear, accurate, and necessary? Yes – Clearly presented, accurate, and essential
Mostly – Clear with minor issues or redundancies
Somewhat – Partially clear or inconsistently formatted
Minimally – Unclear or questionably necessary
No – Inaccurate or inappropriate Comments (tables and figures)

Is there sufficient discussion of limitations and alternative interpretations? Yes – Clearly articulated and balanced
Mostly – Addressed with minor omissions
Somewhat – Partially acknowledged or unevenly discussed
Minimally – Weak or superficial discussion
No – Not addressed Comments (limitations and alternative interpretations)

Does the manuscript adhere to ethical guidelines? Yes – Fully compliant and clearly documented
Mostly – Compliant with minor clarifications needed
Somewhat – Partially compliant or incomplete documentation
Minimally – Weak ethical documentation or unclear compliance
No – Noncompliant or ethically deficient Comments (adheres to ethical guidelines)

Do you see any concerning conflicts of interest or ethical protocols? No – No concerns; all disclosures and protocols are appropriate
Minimally – Minor clarifications recommended
Somewhat – Potential ambiguities or incomplete disclosures
Mostly – Questionable or insufficiently disclosed
Yes – Serious concerns identified Comments (conflict of interest or ethical concerns)

As far as you can tell, is there proper citation and acknowledgment of prior work? Yes – Appears to be comprehensive and accurate
Mostly – Adequate with minor omissions or formatting issues
Somewhat – Incomplete or uneven coverage
Minimally – Sparse or inadequately attributed
No – Lacking or inappropriate citation Comment (citation and acknowledgement of prior work)

Is the manuscript well-structured and logically organized? Yes – Clearly structured and coherent
Mostly – Well organized with minor issues
Somewhat – Moderately organized but uneven
Minimally – Weak structure or unclear flow
No – Disorganized or incoherent Comment (structure and organization)

Is the language clear, concise, and professional? Yes – Clear, concise, and polished
Mostly – Generally clear with minor issues
Somewhat – Partly clear but inconsistent
Minimally – Unclear or poorly edited
No – Unclear and unprofessional Comment (language style)

If accepted this manuscript will go through copyediting, but are there any grammatical or formatting issues that you are particularly concerned about? yes
no Comment (grammatical or formatting issues)

Do you have any comments for the Editor?

These will be confidential and will only be viewed by the Managing Editor, the co-Editors-in-Chief and/or the Section Editor handling this submission.

Join the conversation

This page loaded in: 1.213100 seconds