Rubric Explorer
Pick a criterion, then a score, to read what that score means. Switch the article type to see how the criteria change for review articles.
Integrity First
Before scoring anything, reviewers and the editor check that the work can be published at all. These checks are pass or flag, not scores. A flag stops the review until the editor has looked into it, following the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
- Originality of text. The editor checks every submission for originality before review. Copying text, data or figures without credit is plagiarism.
- Honest data. No fabricated or altered data, and no images edited in ways that change what they show.
- No duplicate submission. The paper isn't published or under review anywhere else.
- Research with people or animals. Adult supervision or approval from an institutional review board (IRB), and signed consent forms where required.
- Required statements. Conflicts of interest, funding, and how AI tools were used, if at all.
- Authorship. Everyone listed contributed to the work, and everyone who contributed is listed or acknowledged.
- Consent. A parent or guardian has consented for each author under 18.
The Six Criteria
Each criterion is scored from 1 to 5. The descriptions below are the same ones reviewers use. We judge papers against what's reasonable for careful work at the high school or undergraduate level: a small study done well can score highly. A sound paper matters more to us than a flashy one.
Originality
Does the paper ask a question that is new in its approach, setting or data, and say clearly what it adds?
Reviewers check:
- States a clear research question or hypothesis
- Places the work against prior studies, with citations
- Explains what is new: data, method, setting or synthesis
- Does not repeat published work, including the author’s own
| Score | What it means |
|---|---|
| 5 | Excellent. A clearly new question or approach, with a precise account of how it extends earlier work. |
| 4 | Strong. A fresh angle on a known question, well positioned against the literature. |
| 3 | Adequate. A known question tested again or applied in a new setting. The contribution is stated but modest. |
| 2 | Weak. Largely repeats well-known work; what is new is unclear. |
| 1 | Missing or unacceptable. No identifiable new contribution, or it substantially overlaps published work. |
Methods
Could a qualified reader repeat the work from what is written, and can this design answer the question?
Reviewers check:
- Design fits the question
- Variables, controls, sample size and selection stated
- Materials, instruments and software (with versions) listed
- Adult supervision or IRB approval, and consent, for research with people or animals
- Limitations of the design acknowledged
| Score | What it means |
|---|---|
| 5 | Excellent. Fully reproducible, with a well-suited design, appropriate controls and a justified sample size. |
| 4 | Strong. Sound and reproducible, with minor gaps. |
| 3 | Adequate. Generally appropriate, but key details are missing, such as how the sample size was chosen or what the controls were. |
| 2 | Weak. The design has flaws that limit what can be concluded. |
| 1 | Missing or unacceptable. Methods are missing, inappropriate for the question, or impossible to repeat. |
Data and Analysis
Are the data presented completely and honestly, and are the analyses appropriate for them?
Reviewers check:
- Statistics suit the type of data and the sample size
- Uncertainty reported: error bars, standard deviations or confidence intervals
- Figures and tables labeled, with units and sample sizes
- No selective reporting of only favorable results
| Score | What it means |
|---|---|
| 5 | Excellent. Appropriate analyses with uncertainty reported, and clear, complete figures and tables. |
| 4 | Strong. Sound analyses with minor presentation issues. |
| 3 | Adequate. Mostly appropriate, but uncertainty or statistical tests are missing, or figures are unclear. |
| 2 | Weak. Analyses are inappropriate for the data, or important results are missing. |
| 1 | Missing or unacceptable. Data are incomplete or inconsistent, or show signs of fabrication or manipulation. Also flagged to the editor. |
Conclusions
Do the conclusions follow from the results, with limitations stated honestly?
Reviewers check:
- Claims match the strength of the evidence
- Correlation is not presented as causation
- Other explanations considered
- Limitations and next steps discussed
- Abstract and conclusions agree
| Score | What it means |
|---|---|
| 5 | Excellent. Fully supported, with limitations discussed candidly. |
| 4 | Strong. Supported, with slight overreach in places. |
| 3 | Adequate. Partly supported. Some claims go beyond what the data show. |
| 2 | Weak. Several key claims are not supported by the data. |
| 1 | Missing or unacceptable. The conclusions contradict or ignore the results. |
Clarity
Can a scientist outside the field follow the paper from start to finish?
Reviewers check:
- Follows the journal structure, with an abstract of 250 words or fewer
- Terms defined, SI units used
- Figures and tables numbered, with captions
- APA 7th edition references, complete and cited in the text
- 2,500 to 6,000 words, not counting references
| Score | What it means |
|---|---|
| 5 | Excellent. Clear, concise and well organized; ready to publish after copyediting. |
| 4 | Strong. Clear, with minor issues. |
| 3 | Adequate. Understandable, but some sections need substantial editing. |
| 2 | Weak. Hard to follow; the structure or language hides the science. |
| 1 | Missing or unacceptable. It can’t be evaluated as written. |
Significance
Does the work add something useful to its field or to future student research, and argue why it matters?
Reviewers check:
- Explains why the question matters
- Realistic about scope
- Discusses implications and next steps
- Useful to others: data, a method or a synthesis
| Score | What it means |
|---|---|
| 5 | Excellent. A clear, well-argued contribution that others can build on. |
| 4 | Strong. A useful contribution, well explained. |
| 3 | Adequate. A modest contribution; its importance is only partly argued. |
| 2 | Weak. Little importance is shown. |
| 1 | Missing or unacceptable. No evident contribution. |
The Written Report
Scores alone don't help an author improve, so every review includes three written sections. Each must be at least 75 words, and reviewers typically spend 45 to 60 minutes on a paper.
Authors receive the three written sections in full, whatever the decision. The 1 to 5 scores guide the editor and are not shared with authors. Reviewers may also leave confidential comments for the editor, such as an integrity concern; these are never sent to the author.
How Decisions Are Made
Each paper is reviewed by one independent reviewer. If the editor is unsure after the first review, the editor adds a second reviewer, and a third only if those two disagree. Each reviewer recommends one of five decisions. The editor makes the final decision after reading the reports and the scores together. Scores aren't averaged into a pass mark.
Decision Guidelines
- A score of 1 on any criterion, or a 2 on Methods or on Data and analysis, normally means the paper can't be accepted without major revisions.
- An unresolved integrity concern overrides all scores.
- Revisions are due within 10 days with a point-by-point response letter. One round of revisions fits each issue cycle; a second round moves the paper to the next issue.
- Editorial decisions are final. To report misconduct, plagiarism, or a reviewer's conflict of interest, see Contact.
Review Articles and Short Communications
Review Articles
A review summarizes and evaluates published research instead of reporting new experiments. Reviewers use the same six criteria, read this way:
- Originality: Does the review organize the literature in a way that isn’t already available?
- Methods: Is the literature search described well enough for someone else to repeat it?
- Data and Analysis: Are sources represented accurately, and is the evidence weighed fairly?
- Conclusions: Do the conclusions follow from the evidence reviewed, and name the open questions?
Short Communications
A short communication reports a focused result briefly. It is held to the same standard of soundness, but reviewers expect a narrower scope and a shorter discussion.
What We Ask of Reviewers
- Never review an author you know. Reviewers declare any connection, and the system blocks the assignment.
- Keep the manuscript confidential and don't use it for your own work.
- Write for a student: specific, respectful and constructive, without softening real problems.
- Finish within 14 days, or 7 for expedited papers.