Suicidology Online - Reviewer’s Form

ISSN 2078-5488

(please fill in or check gray fields)

Ms. #: SOL -

Date (mm/dd/yyyy):

Ms. Title:

Consulting Editor:

Please provide an evaluation of the enclosed manuscript and, in addition, rate it on the scales below. In your review, please consider such issues as its appropriateness for the journal, the importance of the study, the appropriateness of the methodology, the soundness of its contribution, the significance to the field, and its adherence to appropriate publication standards, APA, 5th edition.

There are two major parts to the editorial review process. Part 1 asks for your evaluation and recommendations. Part 2 asks for your written comments for the author(s). Do not sign your comments nor make explicit acceptance or rejection recommendations. We would appreciate it if you would return this form within 2-3 weeks in order to keep the author(s) from waiting too long.

Part 1:

Evaluation / Excellent / Good / Adequate / Poor / Not Applicable
Clarity of Presentation
Adequacy of Literature Review
Quality of Design
Adequacy of Analysis
Interpretation of Results
Importance of Research
Appropriateness for SOL

Recommendation:

1. Recommend acceptance unconditionally. Article is of unusual merit.

a. In present form.

b. With revisions indicated in the comments.

2. Recommend acceptance. Article has sufficient merit.

a. In present form.

b. With revisions as indicated in the comments.

3. Recommend acceptance with some reluctance. Article is of questionable merit.

a. In present form.

b. With revisions indicated in the comments.

c. As a condensed and briefer report.

4. Recommend rejection with some reluctance. Check reason(s) below.

5. Recommend rejection unqualified. Check reason(s) below.

Reasons for rejection:

a. Not original, nor creative.

b. Poor organization, premature, typographical errors, stylistic problems.

c. Methods, design, statistics, inappropriate or faulty.

d. Theory is absent, unconvincing, inconsistent, or otherwise faulty.

e. Data are inadequate.

f. Conclusions do not follow from analysis or argument.

g. Inappropriate for SOL.

h. Other reason(s). (Please state below).


Part 2: Reviewers comments for the author(s):

(the box expands as you write in the gray field)

Please send this form to the editorial office at