Review Guidelines

Overview

The Toronto Urban Journal sends each original manuscript out for at least two reviews. Each manuscript is reviewed by one established scholar and one PhD candidate/postdoc. The reviewers are subject matter experts in the domain that the reviewed manuscript is written.

Reviews conducted by The Toronto Urban Journal are double-blind. With the exception of extraordinary circumstances the identity of the reviewer will not be made known to the author and the author’s name will not be released to the reviewer. The identities of reviewers and authors will be known to the editorial board and occasionally members of the advisory board.

The Review

Below is a suggested framework for reviewers. However, reviewers may provide their commentary in any suitable format. The review will ordinarily be a page of concise bulleted points.

While these submissions are from current or recent undergraduate students, the reviewer is asked to provide honest and frank evaluations of the content. This is a learning opportunity but also a process used to assess whether these manuscripts are fit for publication.

Reviewers for The Toronto Urban Journal are asked to carefully read the manuscript, providing commentary on the following:

  • Accuracy: Is data accurate? Are claims cited appropriately? Is theory mobilized soundly?
  • Presentation: Is the writing clear and accessible? is it organized and concise?
  • Argumentation: Is the premise clear, and supporting arguments carefully constructed over the course of the paper?
  • Suitability: Is this work appropriate for an undergraduate journal of urban studies?

These elements of the manuscript may be evaluated for appropriateness.

  • Title: Is it appropriate?
  • Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
  • Introduction: Does it describe what the author hopes to achieve and clearly articulate the author’s thesis? Does it contextually summarize the piece?
  • Literature Review: Is literature incorporated accurately and carefully? Is it synthesized and critiqued? Is it current?
  • Conceptual Framework: Is the theoretical framework relevant to the topic explored? Is it used as an analytical tool throughout the article?
  • Methods/Findings (If Empirical): Does the author accurately define the methodology and design? Are the findings grounded in the data collected?
  • Conclusions: Does the manuscript draw conclusions that are supported by the literature, conceptual framework and research?
  • Figures/Tables (If Applicable): Are they necessary, clear and representative?

The reviewer will advise the following, whether the manuscript should be:

  • Accepted (No Revisions);
  • Accepted (With Revisions);
  • Revised and Resubmitted;
  • Rejected.