ERIS Web Journal review criteria

Peer reviewers for the ERIS Web Journal will judge the quality of the submission using the following criteria:

• Is the content of the article explicitly related to social work and/or the social professions?
• Does the article have a European dimension and/or relevance for a European audience?
• If addressing local or national concerns, is the material appropriately contextualised to assist understanding by an international audience?
• Are the aims of the article clearly set out in an Abstract and Introduction, and does it achieve them?
• Is the article well structured and clearly written, including English language usage?
• Is the article supported by relevant and current literature?
• If the article is research-based, is the methodology soundly explained, including statistical analysis if used?
• Are the references complete and do they follow the Harvard system?
• Has the author included keywords?
• Is the article within the permitted word length (5,000 - 7,000 words including abstract, keywords and references)?
  
  

There are a number of ways in which articles can be judged to have an European dimension or relevance.

1. Ensure that any issues that are nation-specific are clearly explained and contextualised for an European audience that may not be familiar with the national context in question; for example, legal provision, specific policies or programmes
2. If the paper is located within one national context, its contents may be linkedto broader concerns that may have relevance for an international audience. This might be done, for example, through reference to broader European literature, policies or research
3. The article covers areas which will provide information which will aid readers in critically analysing and applying ideas from the article to their own country situation with regard to the
   
   

Please indicate:

Coverage and review of relevant literature

Discussion

Clarity of a style/readability

Structure of paper

Relevance to social work

European dimension and/or relevance for a European audience

Presentation of tables and figure

Statistics

Research method

Theoretical content

Conclusions supported by the data?

RECOMMENDATION:

Outstanding (reasons below)

Acceptable as it stands

Acceptable with revision (suggestions below)

Major revision and re-assessment needed (suggestions below)

Reject (give reasons)

Comments to the Editor only

Comments to the Author