- Register as a Reviewer
- Update My Account and Reviewing Interests
- Review Process and Instructions
- Reviewer Guidelines
Register as a Reviewer
The Editorial Team of the Canadian Geriatrics Journal (CGJ) invites you to become a reviewer for the Journal. Reviewers play an integral role in ensuring the high standards of the CGJ are met through evaluating manuscripts and providing constructive criticism to editors and authors.
If you are interested in becoming a reviewer for the CGJ, please register through our online submission and peer review system. If you already have an account with the Journal as an author or reader, please follow the instructions under “I Already Have an Account with the Journal”. If you do not have an account with the CGJ, please follow the instructions under “I Have Not Yet Registered with the Journal” to begin your registration.
If you are having trouble logging in or creating your account, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
I Already Have an Account with the Journal
If you already have an account with the Journal as an author or reader, please log in to your account at https://cgjonline.ca/index.php/cgj/login. Once logged in, this will take you to the user dashboard. Go to the very upper right-hand corner of the page and click on the person icon and select “Edit Profile” from the pull-down menu. On the profile page, go to the “Roles” tab. Select the box beside “Reviewer”, enter your reviewing interests, and save. Please ensure that your reviewing interests are entered and complete, so our Editors can correctly match you with appropriate submissions.
I Have Not Yet Registered with the Journal
To register as a reviewer, ensure the “Yes, I would like to be contacted with requests to review submissions to this journal” box is selected and reviewing interests are entered upon registering with the CGJ at: https://cgjonline.ca/index.php/cgj/user/register. Please ensure that your reviewing interests are entered and complete, so our Editors can correctly match you with appropriate submissions. On this registration page, you can also enroll as an author (to submit manuscripts in the future) and as a reader (to receive publication notifications and Journal-related notifications and announcements).
Update My Account and Reviewing Interests
The Editors would like to thank you for your participation in the peer review process for the Canadian Geriatrics Journal (CGJ). Your assistance helps us to maintain the high quality of articles published in the Journal.
We recommend that all reviewers update their profile frequently to ensure the system is up to date with their most current contact information and reviewing interests. Keeping reviewing interests up to date ensures that reviewers are matched to manuscripts based on their expertise and improves their chances of being invited to review manuscripts.
Log in to your account at https://cgjonline.ca/index.php/cgj/login. Once signed in, go to the very upper right-hand corner of the user dashboard, click the person icon, and select “Edit Profile” from the pull-down menu. On the profile page, go to the “Roles” tab. Enter (or update) your reviewing interests and save.
Review Process and Instructions
The manuscript submission and peer review process are broken down into the following steps:
- The Author submits a manuscript.
- If accepted for peer review, the Editors assign Reviewers.
- Reviewers provide feedback on the manuscript.
- The Editors send a decision letter to the authors.
As a Reviewer, you are responsible for step 3. For further information on CGJ’s peer review process, click here.
Invitation to Review
As a reviewer, you will learn of the review request via email or by checking your dashboard. Upon receipt of the request to review, you should immediately read the Editor’s email, which includes the article abstract (if applicable), to determine whether the subject is within your area of expertise and whether you can complete the review in the stated time frame.
Visit the SUBMISSION URL provided in the Review Request email from the Editor and accept or decline the invitation to review.
If You Decline the Request to Review:
Indicate why you are declining and, if possible, please suggest a colleague who may be able to review the manuscript. If appropriate, the Editor may send an invitation to review to that individual. You may not “transfer” your invitation to review the manuscript to a colleague.
If You Accept the Request to Review:
Immediately double-check the manuscript to determine whether you may have any conflict of interest. If you have either a time problem or a conflict of interest, contact the assigned Editor for instructions. The Editor may extend your deadline or cancel the review assignment as appropriate.
Navigating the System
As a Reviewer, you will learn of the review request via email. Once you receive the request, there are two ways to gain access to the system. First, if you know your login name and password, you may log in to the system from the Journal’s home page. Alternatively, from the email request to review, you may use the SUBMISSION URL link to be taken directly to the manuscript (no login required).
When you log in to the system, you see your dashboard. From the “My Queue” list, find the title for the article assigned to you. Clicking on the “View” button beside the article will take you to the “Request”, which provides you with more details about the request and article. Alternatively, clicking on the SUBMISSION URL in the review request email will take you directly to the “Request” page without the need to log in.
The peer review process includes the following four steps:
Step 1: Request
This first step of the process provides the Reviewer with details of the request, including:
- Article title
- Submission details
- Review schedule and timelines
Further down the screen, you will find additional information, where you can decline or accept the review request. Click on the button “Accept Review, Continue to Step #2” to accept the request. You will move to step 2 of the review process. If you decline, you will be removed from the process.
Step 2: Guidelines
Consult the Reviewer Guidelines, which includes recommendations and instructions for undertaking a manuscript review for the CGJ. It is advisable to note the article category of the manuscript and review the guidelines of that category provided in the CGJ’s Author Guidelines.
Step 3: Download & Review
From here, you can download a copy of the manuscript files and enter your review comments. If you have questions for the Editors during the review process, scroll down to the “Review Discussions” panel and click “Add Discussion” to start a discussion.
For Original Research, Reviews, Short Reports, Guidelines, and Perspectives, reviewers must complete a web-based “Review Form”. The form will guide you through a series of questions to help rate the quality and suitability of the manuscript. In addition to providing ratings based on the categories outlined, all Reviewers are asked to enter comments explaining their ratings, so the Author understands how to correct and improve their manuscript. Reviewers are asked to enter specific comments for each rating in the space provided, and they may also leave specific comments for the Editors.
Please Note: We suggest that you compose your review using your normal word processor and copy/paste the review into the form. This will ensure that you have a local copy in case of computer error.
Once you have read the paper and completed the form, scroll down the page to optionally upload additional files for the Editor and/or Author to consult. To keep the integrity of the blind review process, ensure that any personal identifying information is stripped from the file before uploading.
Next, make your recommendation (e.g., accept submission; revisions required; resubmit for review; decline) to the Editor by using the dropdown menu.
The final step is to click the “Submit Review” button to complete your task. You will be asked to confirm. Hit OK.
Step 4: Completion
You will be taken to the final confirmation screen, which notifies you that your review has been successfully received. The review is now complete, and the Editors have been notified.
The Canadian Geriatrics Journal (CGJ) and its editors, authors, and readers appreciate your willingness to accept the responsibility of reviewing for the Journal, and along with the Canadian Geriatrics Society (CGS), we thank you for your dedication to advancing knowledge in the field of aging research.
We hope that these guidelines assist with making the process easier. For step-by-step instructions for submitting your review in the system, please view our “Review Process and Instructions”.
General Policies and Procedures
An online review form must be completed by all reviewers for the following manuscript types (please see our Author Guidelines for additional explanation of these manuscript types):
- Original Research
- Short Reports
For all other articles types the reviewer must enter their review in two open text boxes; the first "for author and editor," and the second "for editor."
Authors submit their manuscripts electronically via Open Journal Systems (OJS) to the CGJ. Each manuscript is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief for relevancy to aging research, whether it fits the focus and scope of the Journal, and if it is of sufficient academic quality. Papers that pass the initial assessment are assigned to an Editor and sent to the Peer Review stage. All manuscripts at this stage (except for Editorials, Guest Editorials, Commentaries, Letters to the Editor, and Book Reviews) will be sent out for review and at least two review reports per manuscript will be collected. Reviewers will be asked to complete their review within three weeks and extensions may be granted on request.
This Journal uses a single-blind review process, which means the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.
On receipt of the invitation to review, you should immediately read the Editor’s review request email, which includes the article abstract (if applicable) and any additional notes from the Editors, to determine whether the subject is within your area of expertise and whether you can complete the review within the timelines provided.
Upon accepting the invitation to review, you will have access to the article and any additional files (ie. Figures), and should immediately:
- Double-check the manuscript to determine whether there is any conflict of interest for you. Reviewers must disclose to the Editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript and should recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript if the potential for bias exists. As stated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), reviewers should “declare any potentially conflicting or competing interests (which may, for example, be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious), seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.” Merely working in the same hospital or university as one of the authors does not necessarily constitute a conflict of interest on its own.
- If you have either a time problem or a conflict of interest, contact the assigning Editor for instructions. The Editor may extend your deadline or cancel the review assignment as appropriate.
Additional general notes for reviewers
- Reviews must be done in strict confidence. Manuscripts under review may not be disclosed to a third party. If a reviewer wishes to solicit an opinion from a colleague, they should seek permission from the Editor beforehand. We generally welcome additional reviews and comments, but permission must be sought first.
- Note that the article provided to you for review is a privileged document and must remain confidential. Do not cite an article or refer to the work it describes before it has been published and do not use the information that it contains for the advancement of your own research or in discussions with colleagues.
- In your overall comments about the article intended for the author, in the box so labeled, organize your comments so that an introductory paragraph summarizes the major findings of the article, gives your overall impression of the paper, and highlights the major shortcomings. This paragraph should be followed by specific numbered comments, which may be separated into major and minor points. If you are asked to complete your review via an online review form, there is no need to duplicate your comments in the overall comments to the author, if already entered under the specific category.
- To keep the integrity of the single-blind review process, ensure that any personal identifying information is stripped from any file before uploading it and is also excluded from the comments entered in the review form. Remove identifying information from file names and document properties using Document Inspector. For assistance, contact email@example.com.
- Criticism should always be presented objectively and intended to help the author(s) improve their paper; offensive remarks are not acceptable and personal criticism of the author(s) is inappropriate. Confidential remarks directed to the Editor, including suspected conflicts of interest, misconduct, plagiarism, or any other concerns, should be entered in the box so labeled.
- Advise the Editor of your recommendation for acceptance, revision, or rejection by making the appropriate selection in the pulldown menu. Note that the final decision of an article rests solely with the Editors. Therefore, do not state your recommendation in the portion of the review that will be sent to the author.
- After completing your review, click the “Submit Review” button. We suggest that you compose your review using your normal word processor and copy/paste the review into the form. This will ensure that you have a local copy in case of computer error. After successful completion of your review, it will be saved in your account within the OJS system.
The Review Process
When reviewing an article submitted to the CGJ, we ask that you adopt a positive, impartial, but critical attitude toward the article under review, with the aim of promoting accurate and relevant scientific communication, while continuing to encourage our broad community of contributing Authors. Although comments must often be critical, they should always be professional and constructive in nature and never demeaning or personal.
You will be asked to consider the following aspects when reviewing Original Research, Review, Short Report, Guideline or Perspective article types, where applicable:
- Adequacy of title, abstract and introduction
- Methodology and design
- Discussion and soundness of conclusions and interpretation
- Appropriateness of tables
- Appropriateness of figures
- Writing quality
- Adherence to the Author Guidelines
- Adherence to the Journal’s Editorial Policies for Authors
- Priority rating for publication
In addition to providing ratings based on the categories outlined, all reviewers are asked to enter comments explaining their ratings, so the author(s) understands how to correct. There is a space to enter specific comments for each above category, and following all categories, spaces are provided for overall comments for the author, and comments specific for the editor (optional).
For an open-text review, please consider the following aspects when reviewing a manuscript, where applicable:
- Significance to the field of aging research
- Appropriateness of the approach or evaluation/assessment
- Appropriateness of the statistical analyses
- Adherence to correct scientific nomenclature
- Adequacy of experimental techniques or pedagogical approach
- Soundness of conclusions and interpretation
- Adherence to the Author Guidelines
- Adherence to journal's Editorial Policies for Authors
- Adequacy of title and abstract
- Appropriate literature citations
- Appropriateness of figures and tables
- Length, general tone, and readability
You are not required to correct deficiencies of style or grammar, as this will be completed in the copyediting stage should the manuscript be accepted for publication. However, copyeditors are not subject matter experts, and it is appropriate for reviewers to critique and comment on the writing and grammar if it will make the paper more readable and understandable.
Although the Editors of the CGJ may be able to note a violation of publication policy or ethical conduct after publication, we rely on the reviewers to detect such problems before publication. The Journal’s publication policies are described in the Author Guidelines (see “Editorial Policies for Authors”). Reviewers are required to communicate suspicions of policy or ethical issues directly to the assigned Editor for investigation and resolution.
Reviewers are required to suggest acceptability of an article as noted on the review form (e.g., accept; revisions required (accept after minor revisions); decline submission; resubmission required). However, since editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations from several sources, reviewers should not expect the Editors to honour every recommendation. The default decision options for CGJ’s Reviewers are:
- Accept Submission: Accept paper in its present form, there is no need for the author(s) to submit a revision. Some minor copyediting may be necessary, but this can be caught at the copyediting stage.
- Revisions Required: The manuscript requires minor content and/or editorial changes before it is suitable for publication. Revised manuscripts do not require a second round of review by the Reviewers.
- Resubmit for Review: The paper contains one or more serious problems, and if corrected might result in a generally acceptable manuscript. Resubmitted manuscripts typically are reviewed again by the Editors and Reviewers.
- Resubmit Elsewhere: The content of the manuscript does not fit the scope of the Journal but may be suited for another publication.
- Decline Submission: The content, style, and/or preparation of the manuscript are flawed to the extent that it is unlikely that revisions can render the manuscript suitable for publication.
- See Comments: If none of the above recommendations apply, you can leave a comment for the Editors detailing your concerns.
Following your original review and recommendation, and subsequent revisions of the manuscript by the authors, the Editors may ask you to assess the manuscript again to ensure all your points have been addressed adequately.
If you need additional help navigating the review process or assistance with the system, please contact:
Multimed Inc. Support Services
Phone (Canada): (519) 578-9897
Please direct queries related to your review, potential conflicts of interest, or the assigned manuscript to:
Dr. Ken Madden MSc, MD, FRCPC
Editor-in-Chief, Canadian Geriatrics Journal