Clinical Social Work Journal - Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewer expertise and feedback are critical in maintaining the journal’s high scholarly standards.

The Editorial Board has helped to create guidelines for the review process. These are meant as guidelines and NOT required in completing a review. However, we hope that they will be helpful in identifying important considerations for manuscripts that are under review for the journal and that you will consider them during the review process.

We recommend that you consider the questions/issues provided here in your written evaluation of the manuscript. We hope that standardizing this process will help the editors in their assessments of peer reviews. In addition, we hope it will help prospective authors, as it will make clearer what they should consider when preparing manuscripts. Please keep in mind during the review process that there may be different considerations for qualitative versus quantitative versus mixed methods research.

Even seasoned reviewers are asked to read these guidelines as there are some new areas that we now ask that reviewers consider, including questions regarding ethics, diversity, equity and inclusion, and data integrity. 

Thank you again for your support of the Clinical Social Work Journal.

Sincerely,

Melissa D. Grady, PhD, MSW, LICSW, LCSW-C, LCSW
Editor-in-Chief

For Original Research Studies

General Comments about the Manuscript

• The fit between the subject matter and the journal’s aims and scope: https://www.springer.com/journal/10615/aims-and-scope (this opens in a new tab)
• The utility and interest this manuscript would be to our readers. Consider its theoretical or clinical contribution, as well as relevance to an international audience and to multiple disciplines. Decisions about ‘usefulness’ and ‘interesting’ should be based on the topic and not whether the findings were significant or non-significant.
• The overall quality of the writing, including whether it is formatted according to the current submission guidelines, including APA 7 formatting style: (this opens in a new tab)https://www.springer.com/journal/10615/submission-guidelines (this opens in a new tab)
• Please recognize that some authors are not primarily English-speaking and so there may be grammar or common errors in English usage issues. This can be flagged but should not influence the final recommendation as copy-editing can address language issues.
• Please note if there are any ethical concerns that are raised by the research or writing. This includes, but is not limited to participant rights, data integrity, and/or conflicts of interest.
• Use person-first language throughout the manuscript (thereby avoiding labels such as schizophrenics, offenders, or victims).
• Consider how well this work contributes to the journal’s commitment to promote justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Abstract and Introduction

• The clarity with which the abstract conveys the key points and aims of the manuscript.
• Whether the research questions or hypotheses are clearly explained.
• The main conclusions and implications of the paper are presented sufficiently.

Literature Review/Background

• Is the literature review up to date and includes relevant information clearly connected to the manuscript aims?
• How well does the literature review explain the major constructs and their relationship to the others?
• How well are the arguments clearly presented and supported?
• How well did the authors explain how this study contributes to the literature (For example, the study contributed to a needed replication, test and generate theory, confirm and build on existing findings, and addressed significant gaps in knowledge).
• How clearly are the research questions stated and how well do the hypotheses follow the literature review.
• How well the literature addresses diversity issues or how the information previously generated is or is not applicable to relevant diverse populations.

Method

• Was the study methodology explained clearly?
• Was the statement included in the report, when appropriate, that the study was evaluated by an institutional review board or ethics committee?
• Was the design:
  • Appropriate given the research question(s)?
  • Executed ethically and appropriately, given the context, participants, and study aims?
  • Appear to have a sample population?
  • Appear to have chosen a sample that was appropriate for the aims of the study?
  • Does the sample composition and size appear to be appropriate for the analyses conducted?
  • Was the information about the sample clearly presented?
  • Have the authors reported adequate demographic and background information for readers to understand the nature of the sample and the generalizability of the results (e.g., age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, racial identity, ethnicity, nationality, physical or mental disability, and important topic specific characteristics)?
  • How effectively have the authors addressed sample diversity (e.g., age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, racial identity, ethnicity, nationality, physical or mental disability) in terms of representativeness of the population from which the sample was drawn, appropriateness of any assessment tools used, and any other concerns relevant to study design?
• Measures:
  • Are the measures chosen appropriate for the interview guide or other instrument used to gather the data?
  • Clarity with which the authors explained their choice of measures.
  • Adequacy of information about measures in terms of reliability, validity, and generalizability, psychometric properties, and any manipulations made to the measures.
  • Discussed whether each measure chosen has been demonstrated to be reliable and valid for the groups included in the sample (e.g. based on age, gender, race, ethnicity, and language).
  • For qualitative research, the authors have identified how the instrument was designed and how the questions were chosen.
• Data Collection:
  • Appropriateness of the data collection procedures.
  • Clarity with which the data collection process was explained.
  • For qualitative research, there was a discussion of whether data saturation was sought and/or reached
• Data Analysis:
  • Whether the authors considered issues of sample diversity in their analyses.
  • How clearly the authors explained their analyses.
  • How appropriate the analyses were in answering the research question(s).
  • Whether the analyses were conducted correctly.
  • How much confidence you have in the data analysis.
  • For qualitative analyses, there is a discussion of how the authors sought to address trustworthiness, rigor, reflexivity, and transparency in their analyses.

Results

• How well the authors present the results of the study.
• How well the authors connected the results to the research questions and hypotheses.
• Whether any tables and/or figures are informative, formatted correctly, and include the necessary details.
• Tables and figures add any merit to the manuscript beyond what the manuscript offers with the text only.

Discussion

• Includes a brief summary of the major findings of the study.
• Discusses those findings in relation to literature.
• Describes implications in terms of social work theory, research, policy, education, or practice, where appropriate.
• Consider implications for how study results inform diversity, equity, and inclusion in policy and practice.
• Thoroughness of the discussion of the limitations of the study.
• How well the authors evaluate the generalizability of their findings (or lack thereof) to other groups, including groups based on age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, or physical or mental disability.
• If appropriate, how the authors justify their reliance on WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic) samples and/or within WEIRD context primarily White samples when applicable. In other words, the authors have at least acknowledged their limited WEIRD focused research, particularly if it is predominantly a White sample.

Any Other Comments or Observations

• Please feel free to share any additional comments and/or observations about this manuscript.

For Theoretical/Literature Summaries/Position Papers

General Comments about the Manuscript

• The fit between the subject matter and the aims and scope of the journal. Please refer to the journal’s aims and scope: (this opens in a new tab)https://www.springer.com/journal/10615/aims-and-scope (this opens in a new tab)
• How useful and interesting this manuscript would be to the broad readership of our readers. Consider its theoretical or clinical contribution, as well as its relevance to an international audience and to multiple disciplines.
• The overall quality of the writing, including whether it is formatted according to the current submission guidelines: (this opens in a new tab)https://www.springer.com/journal/10615/submission-guidelines (this opens in a new tab)
• Please recognize that some authors are not primarily English-speaking and so there may be grammar or common English usage issues. This can be flagged but should not influence the final recommendation as copy-editing can address language issues.
• Whether there are any ethical concerns that are raised.
• The use of “person-first” language throughout the manuscript (avoiding labels such as schizophrenics, offenders, or victims).
• How well this work contributes to the journal’s commitment to promote justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Introduction

• The clarity of the aims and focus of the manuscript.
• The description of the focus of the paper, such as whether it is meta theoretical in nature (i.e., a reflection on theory construction strategies, methodology etc. In other words, a critical reflection on theory), an analysis of a concept (e.g., empathy), a methodological innovation, or a substantive theory of a specific phenomena.
• How well the authors justify the potential contribution of this paper to research (e.g., new theory, synthesis or application of models from elsewhere, identifying major gaps), including what it will add to existing understanding of the phenomenon the authors are trying to explain.

Literature Reviewed

• Whether the literature reviewed is relevant to the problem(s) being examined or investigated
• How well the literature review outlines the major constructs being studied/ presented.
• Whether the arguments or positions attributed to earlier theoretical positions are clearly presented, fair, and accurate.
• How well the literature addresses diversity issues or how the information previously generated is or is not applicable to relevant diverse populations.

Main Body of the Paper

• The evaluation of the paper needs to take into account the type of theory paper it aims to be.
• If it is meta theoretical in nature key concerns are whether the arguments supporting the innovations are explicit, clear, logical, valid, and the overall line of argument of the paper is coherent.
• If the paper contains an analysis of a concept, are the criteria for what constitutes a good analysis explicitly stated and the types of definition etc. assumed to guide the analysis clearly outlined (e.g., necessary and sufficient conditions, prototype, exemplar, etc.)?
• If the paper is presenting a novel theory of a phenomena is the theory explicitly evaluated against theory evaluation criteria? For example: coherence, logical consistency, explanatory depth, simplicity, empirical adequacy etc.?
• How carefully the authors noted the boundary limits of the analysis or theory.
• How well the authors evaluate the generalizability of their findings, theories, or ideas (or lack thereof) to various populations based on age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, physical or mental disability.
  • The consideration of the theoretical advantages of the analysis or theory over competing work or models.
  • Provided a summary statement of the novel analysis or theory that is accurate, impartial and fair

Conclusions

• The quality of a brief and succinct summary of the major conclusions or points of the manuscript.
• The usefulness and appropriateness of the implications provided for the reader in terms of social work theory, research, policy, education, or practice, where appropriate.
• The relevance of the authors’ suggestions and guidance for future theoretical and empirical research.

Any Other Comments or Observations

• Please feel free to share any additional comments and/or observations about this manuscript.