•  
•  

Reviewer Information

Thank you for your willingness to serve as a reviewer for the Kennesaw Journal of Undergraduate Research. The journal could not exist without your efforts. Below, we describe the reviewing process in more detail.

The Kennesaw Journal of Undergraduate Research (KJUR) is a peer-reviewed online journal exclusively dedicated to publishing the excellent work of undergraduate students from Kennesaw State University (KSU). Our mission is to provide a platform where undergraduate researchers can share their findings and contribute to academic discourse to ultimately advance knowledge within their respective fields of study. Through this journal, we aim to highlight the creativity, critical thinking and intellectual rigor taking flight at KSU. As a reviewer, you will help us carry out that mission.

General Guidelines

In general, the most important thing to remember is that you are reviewing a manuscript written by an undergraduate. Feedback should always be constructive and not punitive; however, that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t point out the problems that you see in a manuscript. We simply encourage you to approach your feedback with an eye toward being helpful and constructive.

Papers submitted to KJUR often vary considerably in terms of quality due to the fact that it is undergraduate research. We know that your time is valuable, and we do not want you to spend an inordinate amount of time on any individual paper. If you are spending more than an hour reviewing a manuscript, it may suggest that the paper needs extensive revisions and that you should point out the major problems in general rather than doing extensive copyediting.

Registering Decisions

When you submit your review, you will be asked to make one of three recommendations for this manuscript. KJUR classifies submissions in four broad categories: Accept Submission, Accept Submission with Minor Revisions, Major Revisions Required for Acceptance, and Reject Submission.

1. Accept Submission indicates that the essay has most likely been through the review process, often multiple times, and has been copyedited and will be published in the next issue of KJUR. It is unlikely to register this decision after a student’s initial submission.
2. Accept Submission with Minor Revisions indicates that there are only a few minor issues within the submission and that reviewers are confident that revisions will take very little time to complete. This classification also indicates that upon completion of all required revisions the manuscript will be published in the KJUR.
3. Major Revisions Required for Acceptance indicates that there are major issues within the submission (such as a section that needs to be rewritten) and a few minor issues. A manuscript receives this designation when the research shows promise, but there are significant errors that make the paper unpublishable at the present time. Manuscripts with this classification may take some time to revise. Submissions that require major revisions, once resubmitted with changes, will once again undergo the review process in which reviewers decide if the manuscript has sufficiently addressed stated concerns. Often, these manuscripts face multiple rounds of reviews of revisions before they are publication ready.
4. Reject Submission indicates that the manuscript has multiple major issues that reviewers do not believe could be addressed in a revision; manuscripts with this classification are rejected from KJUR. A manuscript receives this designation when it clearly does not meet the standards of a professional research paper in the student’s discipline.

Review Submission Checklist

1. A decision recommendation of:
   • Reject this article without an option to resubmit.
     • Papers with this designation typically have egregious errors in some or all the following areas:
       • There are major problems with citations and/or plagiarism.
       • The paper does not represent “undergraduate research,” and this issue cannot be fixed even with a resubmission.
         • A common example of a submission that does not fit this definition would be an editorial or opinion piece.
       • The paper contains three or more of the errors noted in the “major revisions” section
   • Encourage major revisions as described in my report.
     • A paper requires major revisions if it contains some of the following examples along with a handful of minor critiques (note that this list is not exhaustive):
       • There are pervasive writing errors (grammar, punctuation, spelling) that make the paper difficult to read and understand.
       • The paper is not written using a formal, professional tone (for instance, the student has interjected opinions when they should have reviewed past research). Typically, the student will continuously use an informal tone.
       • There are major errors in the formatting style for the student’s field (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago).
       • The paper doesn’t fully conform to the conventions of a research paper in the student’s discipline.
   • Accept this article with minor (or no) revisions as described in my report.
   • A manuscript receives this designation when the research represents a quality undergraduate project in the student’s discipline. There may be some minor errors in the paper, but those errors would be relatively easily corrected by the student. A reviewer who gives this recommendation is confident that the student would be able to make the suggested corrections within the 8-week timeframe for making revisions.
2. A review of the submission for the student:
   • Do not include your name on this review as we like to keep our reviewers anonymous.
   • Do not include your decision in your document as we would like to keep that hidden from the authors. Your decision is included, however, as a separate part of submitting your review and will be seen by the editor.
   • Your review can take the form of annotations on the submission, a separate word document summary, or even a text summary written within your KJUR reviewer panel.
   • For rejection decisions, you should only provide a brief statement that provides the student with some constructive feedback. Please do not feel the need to identify every error.
   • For major revision decisions, you should summarize any major problems and note single instances of errors. Please also note any positive feedback.
   • For minor revision decisions, you should identify each error and also provide brief positive feedback.
3. A summary of your decision recommendation for the editors. If you feel that the student should perform revisions, please summarize those revisions for the editor. You may of course copy your summary descriptions from this document!

AI Policy for Reviewers:

As a reviewer for KJUR, you play a critical role in upholding the journal’s academic integrity and ethical standards. The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in scholarly work presents challenges, including misinformation, ethical concerns, and environmental impacts. To maintain the credibility of our review process, all reviewers must adhere to the following AI use policies.

AI Use in the Review Process is Strictly Prohibited

KJUR reviewers must not use AI tools for any part of the review process. Every review must reflect the reviewer’s own expertise, critical thinking, and independent evaluation. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Generating review reports: All feedback and critiques must be written solely by the reviewer.
• Assessing the quality or originality of submissions: Reviewers must rely on their own expertise and critical judgement.
• Summarizing manuscripts: AI tools may introduce bias or omit critical details making them unacceptable for summary generation.
• Suggesting revisions or improvements: Feedback provided to authors must be based on the reviewer’s own evaluation, not AI generated suggestions.
• Checking for plagiarism or AI generated content: While reviewers should remain vigilant for these issues, AI detection must be handled by editorial staff through approved tools, not by individual reviewers.
• Proofreading or rewriting feedback: Reviewers may not use AI for grammar correction, paraphrasing, or rewording their comments.

Confidentiality and the Review Process

All submissions under review are confidential. The use of AI tools risks compromising author privacy, confidentiality, and intellectual property rights.

KJUR relies on human expertise, scholarly judgement, and ethical responsibility in its peer review process. The use of AI in any capacity compromises the integrity of the review process and will not be tolerated.

Any reviewer found to have used AI in their review will be immediately removed from the KJUR reviewer pool and may be barred from future participation.

Thank you

As a reviewer, you play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and quality of scholarly publications. Your expertise and objective feedback ensure that only well-researched and credible articles are published, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in the students’ respective fields. By providing thoughtful, constructive evaluations, reviewers help uphold the journal's standards, foster academic growth, and support the development of the broader research community. Thank you for your invaluable contribution to this process.

Please send general inquiries to the Editors in Chief:

Dr. Amy Buddie
abuddie@kennesaw.edu

Haleigh Edmonds
hedmond3@kennesaw.edu