BACIT/C-JACIT Reviewer 

Thank you for the offer to help review for BACIT/C-JACIT.
 
I have attached the paper and hope that you will be able to complete the review within 2 weeks. I am trying to keep to a two week timeframe so that we don't lose track of the reviews.

If possible could you use track changes to show editorial changes as you work through the document and email back to me, so that I can forward this back to the authors. It is difficult to manage faxes/paper copies.
 
The review form and guidelines is included below. I am hoping it will be easy to fill in and will provide a clear idea of how we should proceed with the paper and provide useful feedback to the authors should changes be required. Let me know if you have any ideas on how we could improve this.

As BACIT/C-JACIT is a publication where we try to assist authors to publish, could you indicate if you would be willing to assist as mentor should changes be required, when submitting your review. 


BACIT/C-JACIT Review

Thank you for accepting to become a BACIT Reviewer.  Reviewer guidelines are included below.
Please note we are trailing this review form and would really appreciate feedback as we want to make the review process as streamlined as possible.

1. Paper Title:

2. Reviewer Name and email address:

3. Date received:

4. Date Returned : (Generally 2 weeks after received)

5. Summarise the paper (So that reviewer's responses can be compared if there are significant differences)

6. Check-list (style: use a 5 point scale ( (1[outstanding]-5[needs significant work] or N/A):Add comments if you wish)

  6a. [ ] Relevance (e.g. Usefulness to BACIT/Readers)

  6b. [ ] Originality (if you have access to Turnitin could you please run it through and indicate results):

  6c. [ ] Clarity (e.g. readability, structure and organisation, standard of English, flow between sections):

  6d. [ ] Appropriateness of Research/study method/methodology.

  6e. [ ] Length (3-5,000 words)

7. Paper composition: (please add comments) 
  7a. Title, Abstract and Keywords Ok:

  7b: Introduction Ok:

  7c: Content (inappropriate, acceptible, excellent)

  7d: Conclusion Ok:

  7e. Referencing (must be APA): 

8. Overall Value Added to the Field: (Check as many as appropriate)
 a. New information
 b. Valuable confirmation of present knowledge
 c. Clarity to present understanding
 d. New perspective, issue, or problem definition
 e. Not much
 f. Other

9. Category (all papers are double blind reviewed)
  Research article, Book review, Conference Report, Workshop Report, Directions/Reflections (work-in-progress/literature review), Opinion piece, Editorial.

10: Recommended Action
  a. Accept - no changes
  b. Accept - minor changes
  c. Accept - major changes
  d. Accept as opinion or editorial piece
  e. Quality suitable for JACIT (Journal)
  f. Paper would be suitable but requires mentoring
  g. Recommend for another publication
  h. Reject

11. Reviewer Familiarity with Subject Matter - Relates to the confidence you have in your review.
   (High, Moderate, Low)

12. Comments for the editor (will not be shared with authors)

13. Comments for authors. (Please provide constructive comments here that authors can use to improve their papers).

14. I would be willing to act as a mentor if required.