Criteria Used by Editors and Reviewers in Evaluating Manuscripts

Editors and reviewers are asked to consider the review criteria within each of the categories below in determining merit and the likely impact of this manuscript for advancing the science, clinical practice, concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions in the field. The goal of ASHA journals is to evaluate content consistently based on clear criteria, as outlined below, and widely adopted reporting frameworks, such as those listed on the EQUATOR Network.

1. Importance

  • The manuscript addresses an important question.
  • The work described is innovative in nature, approach, or scope.
  • The manuscript has potential to advance the discipline.

2. Justification/Rationale

  • The work is well-motivated and is appropriately grounded in theory and prior literature.
  • The paper falls within the mission, aims, and scope of this journal.

3. Clarity and Format

  • Is the paper clearly written and in APA style. Is there appropriate inclusion of references, and does the paper use person-first language and language that is free of bias?
  • Does the paper have adequate organizational coherence (e.g., is the heading structure clear and helpful to the reader?
  • Does the flow of the sections work well to convey the key points)?

Additionally, for research articles, reviewers are asked to consider these additional criteria:

1. Methods/Approach

  • The overall strategy, methodology, research design, and techniques are clear, well-reasoned, appropriate, and current.
  • Information needed for reproducibility is provided.
  • The methodology was implemented with rigor.
  • Applicable reporting standards were followed.

Appropriate data analyses were selected given the purpose of the study and research questions.

2. Results/Findings

  • Planned data analyses were conducted appropriately and reported with clarity.
  • Other results and findings are clear, well-reasoned, and succinct.
  • Tables and figures in the body of the manuscript are clear and effective.
  • Appropriate use of supplemental material is incorporated.

3. Discussion/Conclusions

  • The results/findings are synthesized and interpreted within the context of previous literature, existing models, or theories.
  • Implications of the study have been considered and, where appropriate, clinical implications have been addressed.
  • Important study limitations are acknowledged.