PURM adopts a double-blind peer review process. Each article is reviewed by two reviewers. PURM makes every effort to ensure that the reviewers have similar disciplinary interests as the authors whenever possible. Reviewers are allotted four (4) to six (6) weeks to review and return articles to firstname.lastname@example.org with comments and a publication decision based on the Reviewer Guidelines below.
Once an article is sent to the reviewers, they will be asked to complete a review for publication within four (4) to six (6) weeks. Reviewers should evaluate each article using the following questions:
- Does the article address an issue of broad interest or concern to the undergraduate research and mentoring community rather than a narrow or disciplinary one?
- Does the article provide sufficient framing by drawing on relevant literature to ground the discussion academically for the community?
- Does the article effectively use the framing to explore the issue and to shape the narrative?
- Does the article provide relevant or useful tips/strategies or raise important questions valuable to the readership of PURM?
- Is the article written in a clear manner, within the defined standards of the journal?
Upon reviewing the manuscript, the reviewers should draft a letter to the authors and the editors expressing a publication recommendation (Accept, Accept with Revision, Revise and Resubmit, Reject) and a rationale for the decisions, including specific suggestions for revision if applicable.