Criteria for papers are not bound to a particular methodology, but rather to:
1. is the topic relevant?
2. is the treatment new or newsmaking?
3. is the literature review adequate to support the framework presented?
4. Is the framework clear?
5. Is the evidence, discussion, description clear and convincing and does it match the framework?
6. Does the paper apply standards appropriate to method (if quantitative then defensible, if descriptive then thorough enough to reflect academic responsibility)
7. Is the paper well-written, well organized
If no to any of the above, what is needed? However if the paper is so bad it tires you to even think about it, then just reject. It is OK to reject, we have a lot of submissions. If promising theme but not well developed, make some general statements for revise and resubmit; if pretty good, then thorough critique to help authors.
Eleanor Wynn
How well does the paper fit the aims of the journal?
To what extent do you find the paper interesting (“Can I accept this argument and its possible consequences for the field?”)
How well has the research been carried out?
Detailed comments for authors. If you ask for revisions, please detail them here
How long is the paper relative to its ideal length? If too long, indicate areas where it could be cut down, if too short, indicate areas where it could be expanded