For reviewers

All articles published in HAMK Pilkku will be reviewed, regardless of the section and format of the publication. The editorial staff checks each manuscript submitted: whether it meets the journal and section’s guidelines. If necessary, the editorial staff may request changes to the manuscript before the actual review process.   

All manuscripts accepted into the editorial process will be reviewed. The review will be carried out either by the editor or by an expert(s) chosen by the editor. The review is open in both directions. For manuscripts submitted to the Research section, two reviewers are normally requested, while for other manuscripts one reviewer is mainly enough. 

The review process should take around two weeks in order to make the delivery process as quick as possible. If you receive a request for a review but are unable or unwilling to review, please let us know as soon as possible – this way we won't be left waiting for your response and we can ask someone else to do the job.

Practical instructions for the reviewer

If you have been invited to be a reviewer, please read the author's guidelines. This will give you a better understanding of what the author is trying to achieve. 

The review is carried out in our publication system. All other discussions related to the review process will also take place in the system. 

Keep the following points in mind during the review process:

• When you make criticisms, please do so constructively and with justifications. We do not forward inappropriate reviews. 
• Feel free to suggest corrections, but don't start rewriting the publication.
• As reviewer you are not responsible for language. You may point it out if there is a need for language correction, but do not begin to correct the text yourself.
• Plagiarism checking is part of the editors' tasks, not yours. Do let us know if you suspect plagiarism, but you do not have to do detective work. 

We use a pre-formatted review form. On the form we ask the following questions: 

• Are the topic and the scope of the publication justifiable? How are the topic and the scope of the publication justified? Is there anything that could be done to improve the clarity of the justification?  
• Does the beginning of the text catch the reader’s attention? Does the beginning of the publication invite the reader to keep reading? Does it catch the reader’s attention?
• Are the sources relevant and reliable? Reliable sourcess add to the credibility of the article.
• Is the author’s expertise visible in the publication? How is the author's expertise reflected in the content of the publication and the way the topic is discussed? Is the argumentation convincing? What could be done to bring expertise to the spotlight even more?
• Is the structure of the publication coherent? Are things presented in a logical order?
• Is the target audience clear? Which target group does the publication seem to be aimed at? Does the publication reach its target audience?
• Does the publication have a clear aim? What do you think is the aim of the publication? What could be done to further clarify the aim for the target audience and other potential readers?
• Does the text meet the expectations set by the title and the beginning? Did you get from the publication what the title promised? Did the beginning correspond to what the publication later gave you?

If there are many remarks on specific parts of the text, you can also comment directly on the text file and send it as an attachment to the form. 

The use of artificial intelligence in the review of publications offered to HAMK Pilkku is forbidden.