We begin these Guidelines by thanking you for being willing to become IJTARP Reviewers on a purely voluntary basis.

The following procedure is designed to ensure that you are able to conduct blind reviews.

1.  You will receive requests from IJTARP Editor to review articles.

2.  There should be nothing to identify the author(s) – please check this and advise the Editor if there is some way in which you know who wrote the material. Do not proceed with any review of any article when you know, or believe you might know, who wrote it.

3.  Once you have satisfied yourself that you do not know who wrote the material, please check that there is no conflict of interest for you in terms of the topic contained within the article.

4.  Next, please check that you have sufficient professional knowledge of the material or that you are confident that you can access relevant existing material in order to complete the review.

5.  You will be asked to complete the review within four weeks. Please look at the article in terms of length and topic and confirm to the Editor that you can complete the review within this timeframe. If you might need longer, please advise the Editor immediately. It may be that longer is possible (e.g. depending on next publication date) but it may be that the article will need to be sent to a different reviewer.

6.  Please note that advising the Editor of any of the above reasons why you may not conduct the review will have no impact on your role as Reviewer.

7.  Assuming the items 2-5 have not meant that you cannot conduct the review, and that you have advised the Editor accordingly, please complete the IJTARP Review Form (Appendix A) as follows.

8.  Please check all boxes for relevance even when an article may be about theory or practice without research.

9.  Please provide as much feedback as possible on the Review Form, even if you are recommending acceptance without revision or rejection. Another Reviewer may reach a different conclusion to you, so the Editor may need as much information as possible.

10.  Sometimes a third review may be needed. You will not be advised as Reviewer if you are being asked to do this, as you would then know that another Reviewer has rejected the article.

11.  Add your name and the date you completed the review before returning the form to the Editor. Please return it as a word document (not a PDF) so that it will be easy to copy and paste your feedback to be forwarded to the author. Note that the review process is blind in both directions – authors are not told who conducted their reviews.

Note: articles will be checked for plagiarism before publication but go ahead and advise the Editor if you suspect that this has happened.


Appendix A: IJTARP Review Form   

IJTAR Paper Reference Number:

Please use these Guidelines as a form and enter your comments in each box. Please include positive feedback as well as critique.

Reviewer Name:                                              Review Date:


Abstract (or Reviewer Summary)


Please check if the Abstract provides an adequate description of the paper and, if not, please provide a one paragraph description (2-3 sentences) of your understanding of the paper, what it sets out to do, and what conclusions can be drawn.


Key words - do these reflect the content?  Do you suggest any additions?


Overall evaluation of the article


Is this article original and interesting?


What is the novelty of this research and how does it contribute to the existing literature?


Does the article fit the objectives and orientation of the journal?


Does the article fit IJTARP quality standards?


Is the language used clear? (note: IJTARP Admin will edit for grammatical English)


Does the article have a clear structure?


Literature review


Is the literature review relevant?


Does it leave out any significant body of research?


Is it up to date?


Are the concepts well defined and presented?


Is there a good presentation of existing debates in the literature, points of controversy and consensus, as well as a good analysis of what is missing?


Note: IJTAR accepts papers that stop at this point provided they will make a contribution to future researchers, practitioners or readers.


Study Objectives/Hypotheses


Is there a clear statement of hypotheses/objectives or a clear rationale for submission of a practice paper?


Has the author considered possible outcomes from different perspectives?


Is it clear how the objectives/hypotheses have arisen within the context described in the literature review?


Did the author consider potential negative as well as positive outcomes?


Funding Sources


If any funding sources have been mentioned, is there sufficient evidence of careful boundary management and avoidance of bias


Ethical Considerations


How comprehensively has the author considered ethical implications, e.g. clash of priorities between needs of client and needs of researcher or practitioner, clash of protocol with individual needs of client, ethics of publishing?


How competently have they ‘taken care’ that participants and any other stakeholders are giving informed consent? 


How have they handled giving clients/research subjects the right to withdraw from the process at any point?




Are methodological choices well described? Is it clear how these choices fit the research and/or practice philosophy, and take into account the needs of clients?


Is there a clear connection between the literature presented, the objectives or research question and the methodology of research or practice chosen?


Is there enough information given about the subjects/participants/clients? Does this include characteristics that might impact on the results of the research or practice?


Is the data/information gathering phase well-described and consistent with objectives/hypotheses/practice? 




Are the results well analyzed and supported by the data?


Are appropriate methods of analysis used for the type of data presented?


Is any graphic presentation helpful and easy?  Should there be more graphic presentation?


Are the results presented neutrally, with interpretations avoided until the Discussion section?


Do any calculations take into account sample sizes?




Do the results provide strong evidence for the discussions/conclusions?


Does the author clearly label their own opinions, speculations and suggestions?


Is there a section on Limitations e.g. author bias, small sample size, aspects that with hindsight might have been dealt with differently, unexpected findings that might need more investigation?


Conclusions - or these may be included under the Discussion section


Does the article present a coherent relationship between theory, methodology and results?


Does the paper add to the body of knowledge, in terms of theory and/or practice?


Are possible implications and applications of the research or practice well-presented?




Are these sufficient, appropriate and up-to-date?


Note: IJTARP Admin will ensure that the correct formatting is used for References – reviewers need check content only


Final recommendation


Do you recommend that this article be:


Accepted without revision


Accepted with minor revisions – please indicate what these are


Accepted with significant revisions - please indicate what these are, if not already noted above


Rejected in its current form (with recommendation for submission to a different journal, if appropriate)