Guidelines for reviewers

We are very grateful to our reviewers, who are a critical part of any good scientific journal. Here is what we expect from an adequate review, but we are open to contributions. We hope it is useful to you!

BBR expects reviews to:

  • Be about 500 to 2000 words in length
  • Be focused on 5 to 10 major points
    • These major points should be numbered, following an order of importance
  • Have minor points in a separated section, continuing numbering from the major points
  • Be constructive, pointing out problems but also potential paths to Solutions
  • Be clear and concise, aggregating similar issues in a single major or minor point
  • Be friendly, pointing out strengths and avoiding excessive formality
    • For instance, you may use “you” instead of “the authors”
  • Be timely, do your best to respond within the deadline, and communicate with the associate editor if you think you will not meet it for whatever reason
    • Put yourself in the authors’ shoes: would you like your review to be severely delayed?
  • The review may be written in either Portuguese or English. It is up to you to choose which language you’re more comfortable with, provided that the authors understand it! The rule of thumb is to respond in the same language as the article.

In terms of quality, BBR expects reviewers to address:

  • Contribution: does the research extend our knowledge, add to theory, and have policy implications?
    • Does the research innovate in some way?
    • Does it properly answer “What’s in it for me?” to academics and practitioners?
  • Method: does the method fit the research’s goal? Is the method section detailed enough to allow reproduction by a trained scientist?
  • Construction: is the writing clear and concise? Are the elements well organized? Are tables and figures well-built and accompanied by notes?
    • However, the most important continues to be the quality of the idea, not of the text, unless the text is poor to the point of hindering the comprehension of the idea
  • When uncertain, check submission guidelines at Guidelines for Reviewers or contact the associate editor.

A review template is available at Review Template.