For Reviewers

Review Site Button

Reviewing for Ubiquity

If you would like to review for the Ubiquity: Journal of Literature, Literacy, and the Arts, please click here to complete the reviewer application form. We will notify you about our decision as soon as possible. Thank you for your interest in serving as a peer reviewer for our journal.

General Reviewer Guidelines

Thank you for volunteering to review submissions for Ubiquity. Our editors and authors alike value both the time and expertise that you contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the literature, literacy, arts, and related fields. Your work helps us publish innovative, thought-provoking research, practice, art, and news.

To be able to access work assigned to you for review, please register with the Open Journal System (OJS) here: http://ed-ubiquity.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/ubiquity/user/register

IMPORTANT NOTE: When you click the registration link, please be sure to check the Reviewer box to be able to review for Ubiquity.

In order to review submissions, please complete the following:

  1. Be sure you have completed our reviewer application and registered with OJS.
  2. Invitations to review arrive via email from Ubiquity editors and staff. In the email, click on the submission URL.
  3. Log into OJS.
  4. Click User Home in the main menu.
  5. Click Reviewer in the center of the User Home page.
  6. Click the title of the submission that is assigned to you.
  7. You should now be on the OJS Review page.

Please note that the OJS journal system has places for you to rank certain values, but there is also a place for you to leave free form comments, both for the editors and for the author/creator. Reviewers are strongly encouraged to leave written reviews in addition to their numerical rankings. The written reviews help the authors/creators hone and improve their piece for eventual acceptance, or if the reviewer decides to reject the piece, the written reviews help the author/creator improve the piece for publication elsewhere.

There are 5 steps that the system takes you through which are fairly easy to complete:

1. Notify the submission’s editor as to whether you will undertake the review (Select “Will do the review”)

2. Click the file names to download and review (on screen or by printing) the files associated with the submission.

3. Click the review form link/icon to fill in the review form.

At the bottom of the review form, you will have to make a decision about the submission before moving on to the next step.
Accept (as is or with minor revisions)
Accept conditionally with revisions (only editors should determine if the revisions are acceptable)
Revise and Resubmit (editors and original reviewers determine if revisions are acceptable)
Reject
Resubmit elsewhere (if you feel this strand is not a good fit)

4. In addition, you can upload files for the editor and or author to consult. This step is optional.

5. Select a recommendation again (please select the same decision that you chose in step 3) and click the Submit Review to Editor button to complete the process you must enter and review or upload a file before selecting a recommendation.

Please be aware of the Review Schedule (our deadlines are firm) and follow the Review Steps listed.

 

When completing a review, please consider the following guidelines

1. Please accept or decline the invitation to review promptly. If for some reason you are unable to review a particular submission by a given deadline, we need to know as soon as possible so that we can find another reviewer. If you accept the invitation, please review the submission and give feedback within the requested time.

2. Please contact us immediately if you cannot review the submission for any of the following reasons:

  • You perceive a conflict of interest in reviewing the submission.
  • A conflict may be professional, personal, or financial.
  • You determine that you are not qualified to review it.
  • You discover that the submission is one which you have reviewed before for another journal or conference.

3. Please contact us immediately if you suspect any of the following ethical violations:

  • Plagiarism within the submission
  • Duplicate submission of a piece of work
  • The content for all submissions is confidential. Please do not reveal any part of it to anyone. Please do not retain any copies of the submission or its supplemental materials (i.e. tables, instruments).
  • Please adhere strictly to the reviewer guidelines for the particular strand.
  • In your written feedback, please be detailed, honest, and fair. Avoid harsh or abusive language. Constructive feedback will help authors improve their work and is always appreciated.

 

Once again, thank you for reviewing for Ubiquity!

5250 Total Views 1 Views Today
http://ed-ubiquity.gsu.edu/wordpress/reviewers-2/
ed-ubiquity.gsu.edu
crawl=CC-MAIN-2018-34
27369
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:QC74AIDW7WVJTML2SJRCEGWBN4IID4NS
<urn:uuid:f4446c2d-e684-4655-98ed-cc3808fea845>
2018-08-21T06:18:26Z
131.96.41.233
text/html
sha1:UDCLQCPUFF6BTZSUUOCEYQQIKSBYIV4L
<urn:uuid:926e03a4-0b31-4764-899e-788d01d2e357>
http://ed-ubiquity.gsu.edu/wordpress/reviewers-2/
response
<urn:uuid:a5ba0e74-ae45-4455-a48e-98b4e91b0a3f>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-34
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2018
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-178-124-6.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 0.11-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/