Peer Review Policy

Guidelines for Reviewers

Initial steps: Read the manuscript, supplementary data files, videos, sound files, and ancillary material thoroughly (e.g., reviewer instructions, required ethics, and policy statements), get back to the editors if anything is not clear, and request any missing or incomplete items you need. Do not contact the author(s) directly without the permission of the editors.

It is important to understand the scope of the review before commencing (i.e., is a review of raw data expected?).

Please make your notes in track changes on the document you are sent and save the file as follows: yourlastname_review_thedateyousubmitthereview. For example alberti_review_12_23_23.

If you submit multiple drafts, please change the date to reflect the edit. The author(s) will not see your comments directly.

If you have observations or concerns you wish to raise with the editors, please send them in the body of a separate email.

General List of Questions/Considerations for Reviewers

Will this article be of interest to the readers of The Alexander Journal? If so, why?
Is the writing clear and easily accessible to all readers of The Alexander Journal?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of this manuscript?
How can the editors work with the authors to improve the submitted manuscripts?
Have the style and citation guidelines been followed?
If specific sections or points within the manuscript are unclear, how can the author make their point clearer?
Are there significant pieces of information missing from the manuscript that should be included so that a reader outside of the Alexander Technique discipline can understand all of the content?
Are all the statements or claims made by the author supported by original or published data? If published data is used or referred to, is this data cited accurately? Are sources up to date and peer-reviewed?
Does the author(s) clearly distinguish between personal opinion and statements of fact? Are opinions supported by coherent arguments? Are statements or claims that go beyond personal opinion supported by original or published data? If published data is used or referred to, is this data cited accurately? Are the author's sources up to date and peer-reviewed?
If figures and tables are included, are these clear and do they help the reader understand the manuscript better
Additional notes, suggestions, or corrections:

Checklist for Recommend/Not Recommend

Which of the following do you recommend?

I recommend publishing this article with no major changes. Minor changes are requested
I recommend publishing this article only if the author makes the critical changes described in the review
I recommend rejecting this article due to the reasons described in the review

Do you need to see the article again after the author has reviewed your suggestions?

Yes, I need to check the revisions to the article again before I can recommend publication.
No, I do not need to see the article again.

Competing interests: Ensure you declare all potential competing or conflicting interests. If you are unsure about a potential competing interest that may prevent you from reviewing, please raise this concern with the editors.

Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious in nature. If you are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or have been within the past three years a mentor, mentee, close collaborator, or joint grant holder, you should not agree to review. Also, you should not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review or agree to review a manuscript that is similar to the one you have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.

Timeliness: It is expected to receive a review within 4 weeks. It is courteous to respond to an invitation to peer review within a reasonable timeframe, even if you cannot undertake the review.

If you feel qualified to judge a particular manuscript, you should agree to review only if you can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed upon timeframe. Always inform the journal promptly if your circumstances change and you cannot fulfill your original agreement or if you require an extension.

If you cannot review, it is helpful to make suggestions for alternative reviewers if relevant, based on their expertise, and without any influence of personal considerations or any intention of the manuscript receiving a specific positive or negative outcome.

Confidentiality: Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.

Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including other teachers you may be mentoring ear), without first obtaining permission from the editors.

Bias and competing interests: It is important to remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, training background, or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript, or by commercial considerations.

If you discover a competing interest that might prevent you from providing a fair and unbiased review, notify the journal immediately, and seek advice. While waiting for a response, refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material in case the request to review is rescinded.

Similarly, notify the editors as soon as possible if you find you do not have the necessary expertise to assess the relevant aspects of a manuscript so as not to unduly delay the review process.

Since the journal is conducting a double-blind review, if you suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the editors if this knowledge raises any potential competing or conflict of interest.

Suspicion of ethics violations: If you come across any irregularities concerning research and publication ethics let the editors know immediately. For example, you may have concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or you may notice a substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article.

In the case of these or any other ethical concerns, contact the editors directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the editors, but not to personally investigate further unless the editor asks for additional information or advice.

Transferability of peer review: Publishers may have policies related to transferring peer reviews to other journals in the publisher’s portfolio (sometimes referred to as portable or cascading peer review). Reviewers may be asked to permit the transfer of their reviews if that is journal policy.

If a manuscript is rejected from one journal and submitted to another, and you are asked to review that same manuscript, you should be prepared to review the manuscript afresh as it may have changed between the two submissions, and the journal’s criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different. In the interests of transparency and efficiency, it may be appropriate to provide your original review for the new journal (with permission to do so from the original journal), explaining that you had reviewed the submission previously and noting any changes.

Appropriate feedback: Bear in mind that the editor requires a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. You can provide confidential comments to the editor as well as comments to be read by the author(s). The editors ask for a recommendation to accept/revise/reject; any recommendation should be congruent with the comments provided in the review.

If you have not reviewed the whole manuscript, do indicate which aspects of the manuscript you have assessed. Ensure your comments and recommendations for the editors are consistent with your report for the author(s); most feedback should be put in the report that the author(s) will see.

Confidential comments to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see your comments.

Language and style: Remember it is the authors’ paper, so do not attempt to rewrite it to your preferred style if it is sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important.

Also, be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues that are due to the authors writing in a language that is not their first or most proficient language and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect.

Suggestions for further work: It is the job of the peer reviewer to comment on the quality and rigour of the work they receive.

If the work is not clear because of missing analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted.

It is not the job of the reviewer to extend the work beyond its current scope. Be clear which (if any) suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.

Accountability: Prepare the report by yourself, unless you have permission from the editors to involve another person.

Refrain from making unfair negative comments or including unjustified criticisms of any competitors’ work that is mentioned in the manuscript.

Refrain from suggesting that authors include citations to your (or an associate’s) work merely to increase citation counts or to enhance the visibility of your or your associate’s work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons.

Do not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of your review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author.

If you are the editor handling a manuscript and decide to provide a review of that manuscript yourself (perhaps if another reviewer could not return a report), do this transparently and not under the guise of an anonymous additional reviewer.

If possible, try to accommodate requests from the editors to review revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts you have reviewed previously. It is helpful to respond promptly if contacted by an editor about matters related to your review and to provide the information required. Similarly, contact the editors if anything relevant comes to light after you have submitted your review that might affect your original feedback and recommendations. Continue to respect the confidential nature of the review process and do not reveal details of the manuscript after peer review unless you have permission from the author(s) and the editors.

Ethical Oversight: Ethical oversight should include but is not limited to, policies on consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using animals, ethical conduct of research using human subjects, handling confidential data, and ethical business/marketing practices. The Alexander Journal requires authors and researchers to conform to the Declaration of Helsinki, The Nuremberg Code and the Ethical Oversight Guidelines set forth by COPE.

Authors doing this kind of research must obtain signatory forms signed by participants, author(s), and researchers, and must have said forms available upon request.

Based on material from:

Committee on Publication Ethics COPE

If you have further questions on the ethics of research and peer review, please consult the COPE website or contact the Editors.

When reviewing, please consider whether the writer has followed the following guidelines:

Alexander Technique Practice

Article about Principles.
Article about Procedures.
Article about Application in a particular field.

Specific guidelines for Alexander Technique Practice based on the type of articles:

Describes methods and procedures with sufficient clarity and detail so the readers can implement the author’s findings and intentions.
Avoids vague critiques.

Alexander Technique History

FM Alexander, his life and work.
Significant people and events in the history and development of the Alexander Technique
Scientific, medical, health, and social history of ideas (e.g., economic, education, institutional, religious, etc.), fashions, and trends relevant to the history and development of the Alexander Technique.

Specific guidelines for Alexander Technique History based on the type of articles:

Clearly states sources for quotations and distinguishes between what is fact and what is hearsay (apocryphal).
Avoids hagiographic (adulatory) retelling of FM's or other well-known teacher’s words.

Alexander Technique Quantitative Science

Basic:

How it Works, the mechanism, what is the effective element(s).
Functional, living and associated Anatomy and Physiology and Psychology.
Psychophysical Processes: mind–muscle links.

Efficacy:

Clinical studies and trials which demonstrate the effectiveness of the Alexander Technique in various settings.
Scope, complementarity, limitations, and contra-indications, etc.

Specific guidelines for Quantitative Science:

Is the research based on traditional, measurable, research methods with documented sources?

Were techniques used to reduce bias?

How were the participants selected?
Were participants randomly assigned?
Were control groups included?
Is the language understandable and not excessively based on jargon?
Are sources current and peer-reviewed?

Other Research Methods

This area includes mixed methods and others, e.g., case studies, participatory, multimodal, creative methods, arts-based approaches, community-based research, historical and archival, etc.

Specific guidelines for Other Research Methods based on the type of articles:

Based in traditional, measurable, research methods with documented sources.

Reference current peer-reviewed sources.
Reference current review articles whenever possible and avoid cherry-picking to ‘prove’ the argument.
Presented in language largely understandable to a layperson.

Alexander Technique Qualitative Science

Qualitative Research is primarily exploratory research.

It is used to gain an understanding of underlying reasons, opinions, and motivations.
It provides insights into the problem or helps to develop ideas or hypotheses for potential quantitative research.
May contain opinion, observation, field notes and/or based on personal experience
Qualitative Research is also used to uncover trends in thought and opinions and dive deeper into the problem.
Qualitative data collection methods vary using unstructured or semi-structured techniques. Some common methods include focus groups (group discussions), individual interviews, and participation/observations. The sample size is typically small, and respondents are selected to fulfill a given quota.

Specific Guidelines for Qualitative Research:

Is the research interesting and of value to the community?
Is the methodology appropriate to the study?
Is the sample appropriate?
Is there any evidence of selection bias?
Was recruitment conducted appropriately?
Is data collection comprehensive?
Were ethical guidelines followed?
Is the analysis of data appropriate to the study?
Is the language in which the paper is written easy to understand with a minimum of jargon?

Specific guidelines for Alexander Technique Community based on the type of articles:

Is the article objective and displays a minimum of bias?
Does the author maintain objectivity?
Is the article interesting and of use to the community?