international
scholarly
letter-type
journal of migration studies
scholarly
letter-type
journal of migration studies
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| MIGRATION LETTERS - GUIDE FOR REVIEWERS/REFEREES |
Copyright © 2009 Migration Letters. All rights reserved | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Contact Us
Migration Letters - Guide for Reviewers/Referees
What is Migration Letters Journal and who reads it?
Migration Letters is an interdisciplinary journal. The journal serves academics, policy
makers, students and other persons or institutions interested in migration theory, research,
and practices. ML provides an open forum for those investigating migration practices.
Migration Letters publishes material directed to scholars, researchers and professionals
who work with migrants or on migration related issues. These individuals include students
and researchers as well as policy makers and service workers. Our reviewers elected to
serve because of their knowledge and expertise on migration.
About 20,000 individuals and institutions in more than 150 countries are potential
subscribers to ML. Leading research universities including Harvard, Princeton, Ohio State,
Duke are also among subscribers.
What does a reviewer/referee for Migration Letters do?
As a member of the Editorial Board or as an ad hoc reviewer, you will be asked to
anonymously review manuscripts submitted to ML. Editorial Board members review two to
three manuscripts per month, and ad hoc reviewers are invited to review as needed. Each
year ML has about 100 manuscripts submitted and reviewed, most of which are between 8
and 12 pages and should be original unpublished accounts about 3,000 words.
We encourage electronic review. The reviews can be e-mailed to us in the body of the e-
mail or attached to the e-mail. Please use the REVIEW FORM whenever possible.
We allow FOUR to SIX WEEKS for you to read and respond to the manuscript. Please note
that your adhering to the return deadline is very important in our review process. (If you
are on the Editorial Board, we would appreciate your letting us know when you will be
away for an extended period of time so that we do not direct manuscripts to you during
that interval. We would appreciate your keeping us informed of your current address.)
How can a reviewer make an optimum contribution to a writer’s work?
There are several features of a manuscript that should be addressed in an effective review.
As editors and contributors to journals, we appreciate a reviewer’s beginning a review with
a brief summary of the article. Following that, we would suggest structuring the
commentary to reflect the four categories used in rating manuscript quality: content,
rationale or reasoning, style, and audience appropriateness. Several questions related to
each of these categories are provided below to help reviewers develop their commentaries:
Freshness and Scope of Content
· Is the content fresh? Are readers likely to perceive the piece as a contribution to their
concerns about migration? Will readers view the work as current?
· Does the paper articulate an innovative strategy, program, or perspective? Or does the
paper provide a fresh view or synthesis of existing knowledge?
Rationale and/or Reasoning
· Is the purpose of the article manifest? Does the content of the manuscript clearly align
with the purpose? Does the paper contain material not essential to its purpose?
· Has the author, as appropriate, provided a sufficient review of the literature to provide a
base for the work undertaken?
· Are stated conclusions, results, or findings well-documented and sustainable with credi
ble evidence?
· Do conclusions clearly rest on data presented and analyzed?
· Does the article contain any unresolved ambiguities or conflicting information?
· Are conclusions generalizable to other contexts?
Style
· Is the manuscript’s organization effective?
· Is the writing lucid, coherent, and well focused?
· Where appropriate, are the procedures, data, method of analysis, and findings clearly
presented?
· Would a reader find the material accessible?
· Does a sense of the author’s standpoint and perspective emerge?
Audience Appropriateness
· Would an audience of specialists respond with enthusiasm to the content of the
manuscript?
· Are readers likely to view information gained from the manuscript as information that
would add significantly to their knowledge and effectiveness?
Answers to these or similar questions are likely to provide authors with the detailed
commentary they may need to revise productively. They will also provide us with important
information about your transactions with the text so that we can draft supportive letters to
our authors when we recommend revision and resubmission.
Ranking Manuscripts
1. Reviewers are asked to indicate their judgment of a paper’s content in terms of its being
fresh and current.
2. We ask them to determine the degree to which major points are evident, supported, and
substantiated.
3. We ask that they evaluate the clarity of the author’s writing and the degree to which it is
unpretentious.
4. We ask that reviewers indicate how appropriate the content of an article is for our
readership, which consists primarily of specialists, researchers, service providers and
government professionals.
After you have read, reflected upon, and written about the manuscript, we ask you to
provide us with an overall recommendation.
A) Accept, with minor editorial changes
B) Accept with revisions
C) Revise and resubmit
D) Reject, not publishable
Your detailed comments will be forwarded to the author of the article and will be the only
communication between a reviewer and an author.
Thank you for serving as a reviewer for ML. Your contributions of time and thoughtfulness
are very much appreciated, as well as your detailed comments. They will enable ML to make
decisions about the work that our writers have contributed.
Thank you.
Migration Letters, Editor
Email: editor@migrationletters.com
Web: http://www.migrationletters.com
| ISSN: 1741-8984 e-ISSN: 1741-8992 published biannually in April and October |