As a reviewer for LLP, you are not a gatekeeper. Rather, you work closely with authors to help them develop their ideas and experiences in line with the mission of the journal. Your work, alongside theirs, helps to develop the field and to inspire, educate and support teachers and researchers. In order for this to happen, reviewers need to:
- Be supportive. Criticism is incredibly important. The field has no chance to grow if we only congratulate each other, and ignore troublesome topics. However, criticisms should be as constructive as possible. Consider adding recommendations or advice when critiquing authors’ work.
- Be engaged and responsible. Unlike traditional review processes, LLP utilizes OPR, which allows for a conversation between reviewers and authors about the manuscript, on the manuscript. This has the potential to rapidly decrease the length of time for reviews. However, this depends on your cooperation!
- Be true to the LLP mission.
For details regarding the review process, refer to the review process page.
In line with the F1000 Research OPR oath, we expect reviewers to conduct themselves based on the following four principles.
Principle 1: I will sign my name to my review
Principle 2: I will review with integrity
Principle 3: I will treat the review as a discourse with you; in particular, I will provide constructive criticism
Principle 4: I will be an ambassador for the practice of open science
LLP uses Google Docs which allows you to do the following when you review:
- Make comments while you read the manuscript. Ask questions, share literature, emphasize highlights in the project, etc… Feel free to “think out loud” using comments.
- Tag the editors in comments to make them aware of a specific issue (use +dehaan.shizuoka[AT]gmail.com and +jamesyorkjp[AT]gmail.com)
- Use the “make suggestion” mode of Google Docs to write something in the manuscript that the author can choose to accept
If you have any particularly sensitive critiques or issues, please contact the editors directly. However, only consider this avenue of communication as a “final option.” Issues that can be resolved on the manuscript, should be resolved on the manuscript.