Reviewer Guideline

This guide is for peer reviewers working with Design History (DH), which uses the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

The Role of Reviewers

• Maintaining the quality and integrity of published research.
• Providing constructive feedback to improve manuscripts.
• Assisting editors in publication decisions.
• Upholding ethical standards.
• Advancing knowledge in design history.

1. Review Invitation

1.1. Receiving the Invitation

Review invitations are sent via OJS email and include the title, abstract, deadline, and system link.

1.2. Before Accepting

• Expertise Match: Is the manuscript within your expertise?
• Availability: Can you complete within 2–4 weeks?
• Conflict of Interest: Any personal, institutional, financial, or academic conflicts?
• Workload: Capacity for a thorough review?

1.3. Conflicts of Interest

Decline if you have collaborated with authors in the past 3 years, share an institution, have personal/professional relationships, financial interests, or identity knowledge that compromises double-blind review.

2. Accessing Submissions

Log in to OJS, navigate to Dashboard, find submissions in the Review Queue, and click View.

3. Accepting or Declining

To accept: review details, confirm the deadline, agree to the reviewer policy, and click Accept Review. To decline: click Decline, optionally provide a reason, and suggest an alternative reviewer if possible.

4. Downloading and Reviewing Files

Downloaded files are strictly for review. Do not share, discuss publicly, use for your own research, or retain after review.

5. Review Criteria

5.1. Originality and Contribution

• Does the work add significant value to design history?
• Does it address a research gap with novel insights?
• Is the theoretical or practical contribution clearly articulated?
• Does it challenge traditional narratives or introduce underrepresented perspectives?

5.2. Title and Abstract

• Title: clear, accurate, concise (max 20 words)?
• Abstract: approximately 250 words, summarizing objectives, methods, findings, and conclusions?
• Keywords: 4–6, appropriate and reflective?

5.3. Literature Review

• Comprehensive, current, properly cited (Chicago style)?
• Research gap clearly identified?

5.4. Methodology

• Methods appropriate, clearly described, reproducible?
• Limitations acknowledged?

5.5. Results and Discussion

• Clear, logical, consistent with data?
• Interpreted in relation to existing literature?
• Practical implications discussed?

5.6. Conclusions

• Logically follow from results? Limitations and future directions acknowledged?

5.7. Scope Fit

• Aligns with DH’s aims and scope?
• Relevant to design history? Interdisciplinary contribution?

5.8. Writing and Presentation

• Clear American English? Well-organized? Technical terms defined?
• Main document anonymized (double-blind)?
• Follows DH’s writing rules?

5.9. Ethical Considerations

• Plagiarism, fabrication, and manipulation concerns? Ethical approval? Conflicts declared? AI disclosed?

5.10. References

• Comprehensive (min 20 for research, 30 for reviews)? Chicago style? DOIs included? Current?

6. Writing Comments

6.1. Comments to the Author

Constructive, specific, actionable, balanced, respectful, objective. Structure: Summary, Major Comments, Minor Comments.

6.2. Comments to the Editor

Confidential concerns, scope issues, and recommendation explanations. Do not duplicate author comments.

7. Uploading Annotated Files

Upload annotated files via the OJS Upload File section. Verify successful upload.

8. Recommendation

• Accept Submission: Publishable with minor corrections.
• Revisions Required: Requires revision before acceptance.
• Resubmit for Review: Needs significant revision and another full review.
• Resubmit Elsewhere: Does not fit the scope but may suit another journal.
• Decline Submission: Fundamental flaws beyond revision.

9. Timeline

Typically 2–4 weeks. If unable to meet the deadline, inform the editor promptly.

10. Ethics and Confidentiality

Manuscript content is strictly confidential. Report ethical concerns to the editor only (Comments to Editor). Do not contact authors directly. The editor handles investigations per COPE guidelines.

11. Submitting Your Review

Review comments for clarity and completeness. Verify uploaded files. Ensure recommendation matches comments. After submission, contact the editor for any changes.

12. After Submission

The editor reviews all comments and makes a decision. You may be asked to review revisions. Focus on whether previous concerns were addressed.

13. Recognition

• Annual acknowledgment on the journal website (with consent).
• Reviewer certificates upon request.

Reviewer Checklist

• Expertise match confirmed.
• Review completed within the timeframe.
• No conflicts of interest.
• Review formally accepted in OJS.
• Manuscript and supplementary files reviewed.
• Originality, methodology, results, discussion, and scope evaluated.
• Constructive comments provided to authors.
• Confidential notes added to editor where needed.
• Annotated file uploaded (if applicable).
• Recommendation consistent with comments.
• Confidentiality maintained.
• Unbiased evaluation provided.

Contact

Editorial Office: dh@michelangelo-scholar.com

DH deeply appreciates reviewers’ contributions to the peer review process. Thank you for your service.

Related Resources

• Ethical Principles and Publication Policy
• Plagiarism Policy
• Writing Rules
• COPE: https://publicationethics.org