top of page

REVIEWER GUIDELINES

While all members of Caret’s editorial board are English graduate students at McGill, peer reviewers can be Humanities graduate students from any institution. Each submission to Caret goes to at least two anonymous peer reviewers. One peer reviewer has a background in the type of content that the submission discusses; this reviewer acts as a "local expert" whose insight helps editors understand if the technical aspects of the submission are accurate. The other peer reviewer is not as familiar with the content of the submission; this reviewer lets editors know if the submission is accessible to people who don't have the same background as the author.



Reviewer Responsibilities: Please refer to the following list as a starting point for the review process. This list is not meant to be exhaustive and is there to help guide you as you begin your work.


  • Reviewers should respect the intellectual independence and writing style of the author.

  • Reviewers should identify the main argument made by the author in their submitted work

  • Reviewers are responsible for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the material under consideration, providing constructive comments to indicate where improvements are needed. 

  • When providing comments about a submission’s strengths and suggesting improvements please consider all aspects of the submission (e.g. context, novelty, methodology, validity of the argument, support for the thesis, quality of writing, etc.). Please provide specific examples. 

  • Reviewers should clearly explain the reasoning behind their comments and suggestions for better understanding of the author and editor.

  • Reviewers should be courteous in the wording of their comments.

  • Reviewers comments and suggestions should be based on an objective and impartial consideration of the material without any regard to personal feelings concerning race, religion, sex, etc.

  • Reviewers should not appraise any material by an author with whom they have a professional or personal relation that could be perceived as a conflict of interest.

  • Reviewers are responsible for submitting reviews in a timely manner according to the instructions provided beforehand.

If you are unsure where to start with your comments, here are some thinking points:

  • What is the submission about? What is the main argument or thesis of the submission? What evidence is presented to advance the thesis? What conclusions are drawn? 

  • Are there any aspects of the submission that you did not understand, or that may require clarification? Please provide specific examples. 

  • Are there any questions you wish you could ask the author about this submission? 

  • Overall, does the submission provide sufficient support for its main argument(s)? For example, are claims adequately supported by the literature cited or evidence presented? If not, please indicate where additional support may be required.

Reviewer Guidelines: Bio
bottom of page