Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines for Paw Prints 

Paw Prints: The Michigan Tech University’s Journal of First-Year Writing is a journal that takes article submissions from first-year students at Michigan Tech, specifically those written as part of UN 1015: Composition. These guidelines are for the reviewers of Paw Prints to consider when taking articles for submission.

Review Process:

You will submit your article through our journal review system. Members of the Paw Prints editorial board  and our invited student reviewers will review and give feedback on your submission and make a recommendation to the editorial leadership team about publication. You will receive a response on your submission within 2 weeks. 

Review Guidelines: 

  • Be Fair and Unbiased: if you feel unqualified to evaluate an article, pass it to someone else or ask the editor. If you have a conflict of interest (i.e. disagreement with the argument so strongly you can’t be unbiased), please return the manuscript to the professor for reassignment. (Don’t worry. She’ll assign it to someone else: it’s not lost forever.)
  • Anonymized Review: each reviewer should receive a manuscript with no identifying information on it. If you receive a manuscript that identifies the author, please return it to the professor for a new manuscript.
  • Scope: the “manuscript” should fall within the scope of the journal:
    • First-year writing of good academic quality.
    • Preference should be given to issues of novel, contemporary importance.
    • Preference should be given to works that make a strong point, not just research with no conclusion.
  • The total selection of articles should encompass a wide variety of topics if possible (art, music, computers, mechanical engineering, medical science, etc.)
  • Provide considerate and useful feedback: Reviews should be constructive/courteous, respecting the intellectual independence of the author. The reviewer should avoid personal comments; Paw Prints editors reserve the right to edit out comments that will hinder constructive discussion of manuscripts. It is not your job to edit/correct grammar, but if something is unclear because of grammar you may leave a note. Comments about content should be directed to the author, while comments about English language editing should be directed to the editorial leadership team.
  • Generative AI Policy: Reviewers should not use AI or AI-assisted technologies to assist in the review of a paper. The critical thinking and original assessment needed for peer review is outside of the scope of technology and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect incomplete or biased conclusions about the manuscript. 
  • Libel: Avoid work with libelous or unlawful statements that infringe on the rights or privacy of others or contain material or instructions that might cause harm or injury.
  • Consider some or all of the following questions as you prepare your review:
    • Is this piece high quality relative to our submission guidelines? 
    • Does it require significant revision before publication? 
    • What kinds of revisions are needed? Assess different aspects–is it clear and well-organized? Does the organizational logic make sense to readers? What is the quality of sources used? Are there some that should be replaced, or sources that should be added to better support the claims? 
    • What are the strengths of the piece in relation to the needs/desires of readers?
    • What kinds of readers (MTU students, faculty, and staff) might find this piece interesting? 
    • Would accepting this piece mean limiting other kinds of submissions that can appear (for example, if we want to represent a wide range of topics, does publishing this article mean we don’t want to include other pieces on the field of media studies, film, etc)?
    • What sources, research, or scholarship are you aware of that you might suggest the reader include or reference?
    • Any other feedback that you would give either the editor or the author (or both).