Reviewer Guidelines


Manuscripts for ENAGE! should demonstrate central involvement of community partners. The manuscript should be free of racial, religious, gender, ethnic, or any other form of bias. As a community-university journal with a broad, multilingual readership, clear, accessible language is important.

Manuscripts should be formatted to include title, abstract; introduction; methodology making evident the use of community engaged or community based participatory research; findings/recommendations, and conclusion with reflection on current study and limitations, and ideas for future studies.

Prompts for Evaluating Manuscript

  1. Is the research important to the field and community?
  2. Would the manuscript be of interest to the readership?
  3. Is the writing (jargon etc.) and documentation level appropriate to our readership? Note: We want community stakeholders to find the journal accessible and useful.
  4. Does the manuscript fit the scope of the journal (co-creating knowledge, and serving urban stakeholders)?
  5. Does the manuscript help to expand or further explore in this subject area?
  6. Does the manuscript adhere to the community engaged/community based participatory research principles?
  7. Did the author include an accurate description of methodology?
  8. Are the outcomes noted relevant for both scholars and community?
  9. Are any key citations missing?
  10. Should any portions of the paper be expanded, condensed, combined, or deleted?

Please take time to explain your choices and add context where necessary. Providing your observations will help the editor in their final decision on whether to publish and aid the author in making edits, if so granted.


Peer review is confidential. Treat the manuscript as a confidential document as well as information about the review.

For the Reviewer

Your review will help authors improve their manuscripts by providing your professional expertise. Provide well-founded comments. The review should be constructive but also provide insight into any shortcomings, affording the opportunity for the author to improve their manuscript. Suggest improvement e.g. changes in organization; how the author can improve clarity, succinctness, and the overall quality of presentation. Make clear the need for changes you recommend.

Making Your Recommendations to the Editor

Your confidential comments to the editor should address novelty and significance as well as a recommendation. When you make a recommendation, you will select:

  • Accept Submission -- Without revision if the manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
  • Revisions Required -- Minor revisions are to be noted if the manuscript will be ready for publication after “light,” easily manageable revisions. Please list revisions you would recommend the author make.
  • Revise and Resubmit -- Major revisions are to be noted if the manuscript would benefit from substantial changes such as widening of the literature review, rewriting sections of the text, or perhaps an expanded data analysis. Please indicate to the editor if you are willing to review the revised article.
  • Decline Submission -- Explain your reasoning if the manuscript is not suitable for publication with ENGAGE! or if the revisions that would need to be undertaken are too fundamental for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.

When recommending any (minor or major) revisions, you should furnish the author with a clear, sound explanation of why this is necessary make.

Ethical Guidelines for Review

Prior to reviewing a submission please read these ethical guidelines for the peer-review process. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers v.1, March 2013 - Irene Hames on behalf of COPE Council. ENGAGE! is not a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).