EDITORIAL SYSTEM
The journal's submission system can be accessed below. Access it to find pending submissions, reviews, review invitations, and other tasks.
Tasks
Editorial Review | Article ID |
|---|---|
Please leave confidential feedback here.
For our work to go swiftly and smoothly we ask that you only place helpful comments in this space.
8. Please provide a succinct constructive review (no longer than 500 words).
1. Positive feedback
2. Findings: (What is the significance of the work? Does it confirm existing theories or findings?)
3. Main Strengths
4. Any Major Issues: (has similar work been published? Does the work presents findings that challenge current thinking? Have they cited work that contradicts their thinking, and how is it addressed (or not addressed)? What about presentational issues – any images/diagrams, language, structure not clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?) Please use bullet points.
5. Minor Issues: (Are there any instances where meaning is ambiguous and could these be corrected? Incorrect references - excessive, limited, bias, not properly cited. Any incorrect or insufficient labelling of images/diagrams). Please use bullet points.
6. Ethical concerns? Please list here (this document remains confidential).
7. Please provide a succinct constructive review (no longer than 500 words).
9. Which pages need attention (i.e. Pages 1, 2, 3, ...)
10. Any Additional Comments?
In order to fulfill your reviewer responsibilities, you must treat all materials received as confidential documents. Consequently, you cannot share them without the editor-in-chief's permission. Likewise, peer reviews are confidential, so you should not share information about them without the editor-in-chief's and authors' permission.
​
After reading the article, give yourself some time to reflect and take a break from it. When you begin writing the review, make sure you know what the journal is looking for, and have a copy of any specific criteria you need to consider. Consider the article from your own perspective. Additionally, if you want to suggest a new review of the same manuscript, whether it is comprehensive or partial, don't hesitate to indicate that clearly.
​
Providing your overall opinion and general observations of the article will assist the editors in making a decision. You should be courteous and constructive, without being discouraging.
​
Check out the Peer Reviewer Process attached below, which provides detailed guidelines regarding writing a review.
​
Your recommendation
Consider the categories the editor most likely uses when classifying the article when you make a recommendation:
-
Reject (state reason in report)
-
Accept without revision
-
Revise – major or minor (explain the revision and indicate the amount of revision needed, and indicate whether you'd be willing to review the revision)
​
The final decision
It is ultimately up to the editor to decide whether to accept or reject the article. Before making a decision, the editor will weigh all views and may request a third opinion or request a revised version from the author.
​
Reviewer’s Consent
It is with pleasure that I consent to become a Reviewer for the Journal of Festival Culture Inquiry and Analysis.
Yes
​
Select if your answer is yes:
​
​
​
​
​
Please sign and date: