MANUSCRIPT REVIEW COMMENTS - Tourism Geographies
Good
practice in refereeing - from Geo-Publishing.org
- a useful source on how to be a good manuascript reviewer
This form is for anonymous review of manuscripts submitted to Tourism Geographies.
You can use this form in any of the following ways:
- Print this form and submit it by regular mail or fax, or
- Download this file to your computer and open it with your word
processor, then e-mail the completed form, or
- Open this file in an HTML editor (such as Netscape Composer, which
comes free with Netscape Communicator) and complete the form and then send
it by e-mail, or
- Click here to
download MS Word or Wordperfect versions of this form, which
can be completed and submitted by e-mail, regular mail or fax. (Also
available: a generic version of this form.)
It is the policy of Tourism Geographies to provide an efficient and
expeditious review of all submitted papers. With this in mind, referees
are requested to return their evaluations within one month of receipt of the
manuscript. If this is not possible, then referees are requested to inform
the manuscript's coordinating editor or the journal's editor-in-chief as soon
as possible. Helpful comments for the author(s) are appreciated.
Editor: Alan A. Lew <alan.lew@nau.edu> fax:+1-928-523-2275
Associate
Editors: C. Michael Hall <cmhall@business.otago.ac.nz> fax:+64-3-479
9034
Shaul Krakover <shaul@bgumail.bgu.ac.il> fax: +972-8-627-8991
Allan
M. Williams <A.M.Williams@exeter.ac.uk> fax: +44 (0) 1392 263342
last updated 26 September 2004 - Click
Here to Return to TG Homepage
Review DUE DATE: ________________ Referee Number or Name: ___________________________
Manuscript Number: ________________________________
Manuscript Title: _____________________________________________________________________
Part A - Assessment Scale
| Please rate and comment (in Parts B & C) this paper on: |
Acceptable
|
Some
Revision
Required
|
Unacceptable
|
| 1. Importance of Issues Raised: |
|
|
|
| 2. Adequacy of Literature Review: |
|
|
|
| 3. Rigour of Methodology Employed: |
|
|
|
| 4. Rigour of Analysis (appropriate interpretation): |
|
|
|
| 5. Clarity of Writing, Explanations, and Concepts: |
|
|
|
| 6. Suitability of Illustrations and Table (too many, too few, clarity): |
|
|
|
| 7. Adequacy of Abstract (accurate summary of entire paper) and Keywords
(up to 6): |
|
|
|
| 8. Adequacy of Introduction (purpose and rationale): |
|
|
|
| 9. Adequacy of Conclusions: |
|
|
|
| 10. Accuracy of the Title: |
|
|
|
| 11.Contribution to the Study of Tourism: |
|
|
|
Do you recommend the paper for:
____ Acceptance as is
____ Acceptance subject to revisions
____ Rejection, but recommend major revisions and resubmission to the
review process*
____ Rejection
*you agree to review a revised and resubmitted paper
Part B - Evaluation Comments to be forwarded to the Author(s) - In particular,
please address issues that you rated as Requiring Some Revision or Unacceptable,
above. (these comments may be submitted on a separate sheet)
Part C - Confidential Comments for the Editor (optional)
return to TG homepage