Reviewer guidelines and report
Youth Studies Australia aims to provide up-to-date research and practice information for people working in the youth field. Youth Studies Australia encourages authors to communicate to a wide, often non-academic, audience. Papers that have been peer reviewed for Youth Studies Australia may therefore differ in appearance and length from those in traditional scholarly journals, but must nevertheless meet similar criteria.
Contributors are asked to write to a word length of no more than 4,000 words (including references and headings); therefore, background reading and the methodology or "science" need to be summarised very succinctly. Authors are encouraged to focus on findings, discussion, implications and recommendations. While the authors' demonstration of knowledge of the literature is very important, it need not be unnecessarily expansive. The space available should be used to "advance" knowledge of the issue or subject; with common knowledge accepted as "given".
Reviewers are asked to complete the templates in the YSA reviewer guidelines and report (PDF document) while considering the following factors:
- the originality of the material,
- the appropriateness of approach and design,
- the policy implications and/or relevancy of the material, and
- the effectiveness of figures and tables1.
Reviewers may also make specific comments on the manuscript. We ask reviewers not to correct deficiencies in style or mistakes in grammar, but they are encouraged to identify any unclear, repetitive or ambiguous passages, and any need to reorganise content or condense particular passages. After peer review, if the paper is accepted, the manuscript will be edited for style, grammar, spelling and construction by YSA editorial staff.
We use a 'blind' review system in that the author is not identified to the reviewers and the reviewers are not identified to the author. However, anonymous reviewer comments may be forwarded to the author(s). If you wish to direct comments to the editor only, please include a separate note labelled 'For the editor only'.
We ask reviewers to distinguish between revisions considered essential and those considered desirable. In addition, because editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, reviewers should not expect the editor to act on every recommendation. Please note that the decision to accept or reject a paper will be made by the in-house editorial team.
If reviewers suggest revision, you may be asked to check the revised paper.
Further information for reviewers and two templates for reports is supplied in the Reviewer guidelines and report (PDF document).