Manuscripts are reviewed by at least two reviewers who will provide recommendations to the journal editors for publication. Reviewers' comments are summarized by the editors for the authors. If revisions are recommended, authors are strongly encouraged to revise the paper accordingly and note, in detail in a separate attachment, how each suggestion was addressed: See Author Feedback form
Desk and editor review: NACADA is committed to the timely review of manuscripts. However, NACADA is also committed to a developmental process that provides authors with constructive suggestions and encouragement when a submission has the potential to contribute to academic advising literature. This review process reflects NACADA's commitment to the development of scholar practitioners.
Upon receipt of a manuscript, a member of the editorial team completes an initial "desk review" of the manuscript and determines its disposition which either is a) 'desk reject' without further consideration, b) move to "editor review" for potential further consideration, or c) assign to two peer reviewers, i.e., blind review. Every effort is made to complete the initial "desk review" within four (4) weeks of receipt of the manuscript. Authors of manuscripts in category 'a' receive notice of the disposition within a month. Authors of manuscripts falling into categories "b" or "c" typically are notified of the next steps within three to four months of the manuscript's submission.
Peer Reviewer Selection: The co-editors choose reviewers whose expertise will support the purpose of the NACADA Review and, in some cases, most closely match a particular topic. NACADA members and non-members may apply or be asked to serve on the publication's Editorial Review Board. Reviewers are requested to serve a three-year term with the option of resigning after the first year. Care is given by the co-editors not to overburden any one expert as these positions are volunteer. Issues of potential reviewer bias are addressed in review policies and processes by excluding reviewers from the same institution and by asking reviewers to disclose any potential conflict of interest. Editorial Board members are expected to complete an assigned review within 21 days.
Peer-reviewer responsibilities toward authors:
Provide written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner using the NACADA Review’s Rubric for reviewers and specific suggestions for improving the manuscript
Avoid personal comments or criticism
Analyze the manuscript from the perspective of a broad audience
Maintain the confidentiality of the review process
Peer-reviewer responsibilities toward editors:
Notify the editors immediately if unable to review within 21 days.
Decline to review the manuscript when a possibility of a conflict exists
Comply with editors’ expectation for reviewers to make full use of the NACADA Review Rubric and manuscript guidelines
Provide a thoughtful, fair, and constructive critique of the manuscript including ways to strengthen it
Note any ethical concerns relative to the manuscript
Refrain from contact with the author
Peer-reviewer responsibilities toward readers:
Ensure the manuscripts are appropriate for a broad audience and provide enough detail for readers to understand content transferability and praxis.
Ensure the manuscript cites relevant work by other researchers and practitioners.
Reference: http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-3-reviewer-roles-and-responsibilities/