Reviewer Guidelines
Thank you for agreeing to review for the Fall 2026 issue of NOUS Review. This note sets out what the editors would be grateful to receive and how the evaluation is structured.
Purpose of this review
All papers in this round have already been accepted for publication, and there will be no revision stage. Your review therefore does not bear on whether a paper is published. Instead, it offers the author an expert reading they can draw on in future work.
Side comments, the general review and scores will be shared with the author. Any remarks intended for the editors alone may be sent separately by email (see Confidentiality and integrity).
What we ask for
For each paper, we would be grateful to receive two files: the manuscript with your side comments, and the completed evaluation form.
| Item | Where it goes | Review & Critique (2026FAxx) | Research Paper (2026FBxx) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Side comments | In the manuscript, as Word comments | 3–5 comments | 5–8 comments |
| General review | Evaluation form | About 300 words (250–350) | About 300 words (250–350) |
| Scores | Evaluation form | 1–5 on each of the six criteria, with a one-sentence reason | Same |
The submission number indicates the type: FA = Review & Critique, FB = Research Paper.
Calibration
The authors are secondary-school students (Grades 9–12). NOUS aims to publish work that approaches the standard of undergraduate journals, so we suggest assessing each paper against strong undergraduate coursework in its field rather than against professional publication. The scores are most useful to us when they indicate how close each paper comes to that standard.
Where feedback is most valuable
In our experience, authors at this stage benefit most from comments on:
- summary or description standing in for argument
- a thesis that is missing, unclear, or shifts during the paper
- claims without support, or claims that outrun the evidence
- misreading or misrepresentation of a source
- key terms used loosely or in more than one sense
What we ask you not to weigh
- coverage of the full specialist literature
- limited access to archives, data, or untranslated sources
- citation formatting, which will be standardized to Chicago style during copyediting. We would still appreciate a note on any citation that appears inaccurate, missing, or fabricated.
Use of the scale
Acceptance does not imply high scores across the board. We expect most papers in this issue to fall around 3–4 on most criteria. A 5 would indicate work that would hold up in an undergraduate journal, and a 1 or 2 a notable weakness, even in a paper that is strong overall.
Pieces are shorter (about 1,500–2,500 words) and respond to a specific book, text, film, argument or figure. They are perhaps best assessed on how accurately they reconstruct their object and how well they evaluate it, rather than on the scope expected of a research paper.
Papers are at least 3,000 words and are expected to advance an original argument grounded in sources.
The six criteria
Each criterion is scored from 1 to 5 in whole numbers. The table describes scores of 5, 3 and 1; 4 and 2 may be used for work that falls in between. We would appreciate a one-sentence reason for each score.
| Criterion | Guiding question | 5 | 3 | 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Significance of the question | Does the paper pose a question that matters beyond a class exercise? | A clear, well-scoped question, and the paper says why it matters | A real question, but vague or too broad; why it matters is only implied | A topic rather than a question; no sense of why it matters |
| B. Analytical depth | Does it go beyond summary to interpretation and argument? | A sustained argument that takes on objections and reaches conclusions the reader would not predict | Some analysis, but long stretches of summary; objections handled briefly or not at all | Mostly summary or description |
| C. Interdisciplinary integration | Does drawing on more than one field or tradition produce insight? | The fields genuinely inform each other; concepts are carried across carefully | A second field is present but decorative or loosely connected | No real connection, or concepts misused when carried across fields |
| D. Evidentiary quality | Are claims grounded in texts, history, data or theory, and is that evidence represented accurately? | Close use of primary sources, cited accurately; claims proportionate to the evidence | Evidence present but thin, relying heavily on secondary sources, or sometimes stretched | Claims unsupported; sources misread or unverifiable |
| E. Originality | Does the paper offer its own interpretation or framework? | A new reading or framework that a well-read reader would not have predicted | A competent account of well-known positions with some original angle | Repeats the argument of a source or a familiar view |
| F. Prose quality | Is the writing precise, coherent and controlled? | Precise and well organized; any difficulty comes from the ideas, not the wording | Generally clear, with some unclear passages or uneven structure | Hard to follow; frequent errors obscure the meaning |
Side comments
Side comments are made directly in the manuscript and returned to the author together with the general review.
- Number
- 3–5 comments for Review & Critique pieces (2026FAxx) and 5–8 for Research Papers (2026FBxx). Additional comments are welcome.
- Format
- Please use Word’s comment function (Review → New Comment), anchoring each comment to the sentence or passage it concerns. We ask that the text itself not be edited and that Track Changes not be used.
- Placement
- We would be grateful if comments could be spread across the paper rather than concentrated in the opening pages.
- Focus
- We hope most comments will address substance: the argument, the use of evidence, the reading of sources, or the definition of key terms. Comments on language are welcome where the wording affects the meaning.
- Content
- A comment is most useful to the author when it names the issue or strength, explains why it matters and, where helpful, suggests a direction. A comment on what the paper does well is as valuable as a critical one.
The general review
The general review (about 300 words) is intended as an overall assessment that draws your comments together rather than restating them. The following outline may be helpful, though please feel free to adapt it:
- The argument as you read it (2–3 sentences), so the author can see how the paper came across.
- Principal strengths (1–2), with reasons.
- Principal weaknesses (2–3), in order of importance, with reasons.
- Directions for future work. As there is no revision stage, suggestions about approach and method for the author’s next paper are likely to be most useful.
To preserve anonymity, we would ask that the author be referred to as “the author” or “the paper”, without a name or gendered pronoun.
Confidentiality and integrity
Review is double-blind: reviewers do not know the authors’ identities, and authors will not be told who reviewed their work.
- Confidentiality
- We ask that manuscripts not be shared, quoted or cited, and that copies be deleted once the review has been returned.
- AI tools
- To protect confidentiality and the authors’ rights in unpublished work, we ask that no part of a manuscript be entered into AI tools (such as ChatGPT, Claude or DeepSeek) or into online plagiarism or AI-detection services. Spell-checking your own comments is, of course, fine.
- Integrity concerns
- Should you suspect plagiarism, fabricated citations or substantially AI-generated text, we would be grateful if you could raise it with the editors by email, citing the relevant passages, rather than in the comments or review. The editors will follow up.
Returning your review
For each paper, please email the following files to the editors:
- the annotated manuscripts, named [submission number]_reviewed.docx (for example, 2026FB01_reviewed.docx)
- the completed evaluation form
Questions and conflicts of interest may be sent to the same address.
With our sincere thanks for your time and expertise,
The Editors, NOUS Review