Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

(Last updated: June 15, 2006)

Thank you very much for serving as a reviewer for Human Factors! Below are some guidelines for providing comments and recommendations to the editor.

Please complete and submit your review by or before the four-week deadline noted in the e-mail message you received.

In selecting reviewers for this submission, the editor relied on keywords supplied by the author to find a match among the reviewers with related expertise. If your expertise areas have changed, please be sure to update your profile in this system. If you feel you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic of the paper assigned to you, please contact the Journal Administrator immediately. Similarly, if you believe you have a conflict of interest with regard to a manuscript assigned to you for review, please notify the Journal Administrator.

New! The journal's editorial team assumes that the review you submit is your own work. Under no circumstance should you turn your review over to someone else (students included) or collaborate with someone else on the review. If you are unable to review the paper in a timely manner, please notify the Journal Administrator and a new reviewer will be assigned by the editor. If you wish to provide a student or coworker with review experience, you must obtain permission from the Associate Editor for that person to write a review; if permission is given, that review must be independent of yours. The student's/coworker's review will be shared with the editor and, at his/her discretion, with other reviewers and the author. However, it is to be clearly identified as a student/coworker review and will supplement (not replace) the regular reviews.

During the review of a manuscript, please maintain confidentiality about its content (i.e., do not cite the work or forward or discuss it with others not involved in its review for publication by this journal).

If a submission does not conform to the manuscript preparation guidelines in the Instructions for Authors, you may recomend immediate rejection.

We recommend that you prepare your comments to (a) the editor and (b) the author on your computer and then cut and paste them into the appropriate text windows in the on-line form.

The system will send automated reminders about your review deadline. This helps the editor and staff ensure that authors are receiving timely responses to their submissions.

COMMENTS TO THE EDITOR

It would be most helpful if your comments to the editor could address two criteria for acceptance. The first is whether the manuscript makes a contribution that is both significant and innovative enough to be published in Human Factors. Please keep in mind that we have a broad spectrum of readers whose diversity dictates that we publish only papers reporting important developments on major issues. The second criteria concerns the more typical questions of whether the work is logically sound and technically correct. Your comments in regards to both of these criteria should be aimed at helping the editor decide whether this paper represents a substantial enough contribution to warrant publication in Human Factors.

REVIEW STRUCTURE

Reviewers are selected for their technical expertise, demonstrated scholarship, and timeliness. Many of you are experienced at reviewing and know what should go into a review. In structuring your review, however, you may wish to consider some of the following points listed below. The intent of providing this list is not to burden you with a rigid set of regulations, but rather to highlight a few procedural issues that can make the whole editorial process a little smoother and more efficient.

Organization. Please separate and number your comments consecutively throughout the review. This is very helpful when it comes to communicating with authors (e.g., I can say "pay particular attention to Comments #1 and #3 from Reviewer B"). It also helps authors to communicate back to us (e.g., explaining why they made various revisions to their original work). The system you use for assigning numbers to comments is less critical. This can be done by order of importance, by rating dimensions, by sections of the manuscript, or by whatever means you feel is most appropriate.

Style. Please be critical in your comments. We are likely to receive as many as 180 manuscripts a year and are only going to be able to publish around 30. Thus we are going to have to make rather fine distinctions among some pretty good manuscripts (specifically those that fall within the 15th-25th percentile, in terms of quality, of submissions). We need to set a high standard for publication if we are to remain one of the top journals in this discipline.

Tone. There are many ways to phrase criticisms. Please try to make yours as constructive as possible. If you must use harsh words, address them ONLY TO THE EDITOR in the appropriate text window of the on-line review form. It is difficult enough for authors to have their paper rejected without having to endure the slings and arrows of outraged reviewers as well. We would like to continue to receive at least 180 manuscripts a year, and we are not the only available outlet for work in this discipline. Thus, we would like to think that authors' reaction to the review process would not be so negative that we see a drop-off in submissions. We need to set a high standard for how we treat authors and their work. It will be a difficult challenge to be critical and yet be perceived as kind and constructive, but that is our goal.

New! Structured abstract. Please be sure to point out cases in which the author has not included a structured abstract. The abstract is very important to readers because it is often the only part they read, and it generally determines whether they decide to dig deeper. Prepare a one-paragraph abstract of no more than 200 words, with information arranged under the following subheadings (include the subheadings in your abstract): (a) "Study design"; (b) "Objectives"; (c) "Summary of background data"; (d) "Methods," including the apparatus, data collection procedures, and number of participants; (e) "Results," including statistical significance levels; (f) "Conclusions"; and (g) "Potential or actual applications of this research."

View an example of a structured abstract. (PDF: 13 kb).

New! Word counts. We recently revised the Instructions for Authors to establish word limits on submissions (formerly manuscript-page limts). Please point out cases in which a paper has been misclassified (e.g., Regular Article vs. Research Report) by an author and suggest places for trimming if that is necessary.

IMPORTANT NOTES ABOUT REVIEWING IN MANUSCRIPT CENTRAL

Most submissions to Human Factors are single-blind reviewed (reviewers' identity concealed, but not authors'). However, reviewers have the option to identify themselves to the authors. If you wish to reveal your identity to the author (and other reviewers), simply include your name in your comments to the author.

NOTE REGARDING BLINDING: When you upload a Word file containing your comments to the author, your identity may be revealed if the author opens the file and clicks "Properties" in the "File" pulldown menu.

There are two options to avoid uploading a Word file that contains your identity:

1. Enter your comments in the open text window under the "Comments to Authors" heading (preferred method). Note that text enhancements (e.g., bold, italics) and special nonkeyboard characters (e.g., Greek) will not be retained.

2. If you have the full Adobe Acrobat program, convert your Word file into an Acrobat file, name it with the manuscript ID number, and then upload it to Manuscript Central.

Return to Human Factors main page.