The "comments and suggestions for the author/s" field (see Review form's point 5) is addressed to the author, and should include constructive comments for improving the submission. These could include identification of the submission’s main overall strengths and weaknesses, of any sections that ought to be modified or developed further, of any changes to the overall structure that might be needed. It’s important that these comments be of a constructive nature and not merely critical, even when the Referee recommends that the submission should be rejected outright. Indeed, in cases where the reviews from the two Referees clash, the editor may decide to go ahead and publish the submission; in that case it’s important for the author to be in a position to respond to any suggestions that both Referees have made. Specific aspects that Referees often draw attention to are methodological shortcomings, claims that are unsubstantiated and/or not supported by bibliographic references, weaknesses in argumentation, etc. In these cases, referees are expected to suggest appropriate remedies for overcoming identified weaknesses.

As far as possible, Referees should also check the appropriateness of bibliographic references, and suggest any useful additions that might be made. It is also the referee’s job to check that the bibliographic references in the text body are coherent with the bibliography and vice-versa. If the referee has suggested that the work would be more appropriate to publish as a different type of submission (e.g. as a position paper instead of paper, as mentioned above) then indications must be given as to what changes should be made to that end. 

Referees must ALWAYS complete the two comment fields; the more substantial the changes called for in the manuscript, the more detailed the referee’s comments and suggestions should be. The referee’s recommendations about the submission’s ultimate fate must never be directed to the author, as they may clash with the editor’s final decision and thus generate confusion. Referees can insert comments and suggestions at specific points in the submission text by working directly on the manuscript in <Revision> mode and then upload that file on the OJS platform. However, the review form must nevertheless be completed in its entirety as well. Note that any modifications made in MS Word’s <Revision> mode are tagged with the commenter’s ID. So, to maintain anonymity, it’s important for referees to ensure that instead of an actual name or initials, the ID tag is anonymous, e.g. <REFEREE A>. You can change this MS Word setting in FILE/OPTIONS/GENERAL OPTIONS/USER NAME and USER INITIALS.