EEP/shiree Working Papers are intended to offer policy engaging insights into the dynamics of extreme poverty in Bangladesh. The process of peer review helps ensure that published working papers are of good quality and make some contribution to our understanding of extreme poverty. In line with EEP/shiree’s data policy, all published working papers will be peer reviewed.
EEP/shiree’s working papers are expected to undergo a light touch as opposed to full academic style peer review process. There are two main reasons for this. First, we want the peer review process to be one that is primarily supportive of researchers. Second, we recognise that different working papers will make different kinds of contributions. Some may be more conceptual, but most will offer more empirical, policy orientated or programme focussed insights. Third, we are aware that reviewers are busy people and we hope that the review is not a burdensome exercise.
Peer reviewers are asked to provide short feedback (bullet points are perfectly acceptable). We will also encourage peer reviewers to complete their reviews within three weeks of receiving a paper. Reviews will be collected and reviewed by EEP/shiree, and will then form the basis of subsequent decisions on the working paper. All reviews and any feedback to authors will be anonymised. In contrast, if a peer reviewer would like his or her name and organisation formally acknowledged or represented in the paper (e.g. in acknowledgements and / or through representation of a logo) it is asked that you inform let EEP/shiree.
Thank you for agreeing to act as a peer reviewer for EEP/shiree. Below we offer an indicative list of questions which you may wish to consider in your review. Not all questions need to be answered, and again responses need not be long.
- What are the main strengths of this paper?
- Are the main arguments in the paper well focused and articulated?
- Is the paper well-structured? Are more headings or sub-headings needed to break up the text?
- If the paper uses tables, figures, illustrations, etc., are they necessary and clear?
- Are there any obvious points, arguments or references which have been overlooked or under-utilised in the paper? Are there any weaknesses?
- Please provide any other comments or suggestions that you may have.