OMP Reviewer Guide: How to Complete Book Reviews in Open Monograph Press

This guide is for reviewers invited to evaluate book manuscripts in Open Monograph Press (OMP). Whether you’re reviewing a complete monograph or an edited volume, this guide walks you through the entire review process—from accepting the invitation to submitting your evaluation.

Understanding Your Role as a Reviewer #

Reviewers play a critical role in scholarly book publishing. Your evaluation helps press editors make informed decisions about which manuscripts to publish and provides authors with constructive feedback to improve their work.

As a reviewer, you will:

• Evaluate manuscript quality, originality, and contribution to the field
• Assess the clarity, organization, and argumentation
• Identify strengths and areas for improvement
• Recommend whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or declined
• Maintain confidentiality throughout the process

Review Types in OMP #

OMP supports different review configurations. Your press may use one of these approaches:

Anonymous Reviewer / Anonymous Author (Double-Blind):

You don’t know the author’s identity, and the author doesn’t know yours. Author identifying information is removed from the manuscript.

Anonymous Reviewer / Disclosed Author (Single-Blind):

You know the author’s identity, but the author doesn’t know yours.

Open Review:

Both you and the author know each other’s identities. Reviews may be published alongside the book.

The press editor will inform you which type of review is being used. Regardless of type, maintain professional objectivity in your evaluation.

Internal vs External Review #

OMP distinguishes between two review stages:

Internal Review:

Conducted by editors or editorial board members within the press. Evaluates whether the manuscript fits the press scope and merits external review.

External Review:

Conducted by subject-matter experts outside the press. Provides detailed scholarly evaluation of the manuscript’s contribution and quality.

As an external reviewer, you bring specialized expertise that press editors may not possess. Your assessment carries significant weight in the editorial decision.

---

Step 1: Receiving the Review Request #

When an editor invites you to review a manuscript, you receive an email containing:

• The manuscript title (and possibly abstract)
• The editor’s name and contact information
• Deadline for responding to the invitation
• Deadline for completing the review (if you accept)
• A link to respond to the request

Important: Respond to the invitation promptly, even if you must decline. Editors need to know quickly so they can find alternative reviewers if necessary.

Step 2: Deciding Whether to Accept #

Before accepting a review request, consider:

Expertise:

• Does the manuscript fall within your area of expertise?
• Can you provide a competent evaluation of the content?
• Are you familiar with the current literature in this field?

Time Availability:

• Can you complete the review by the deadline?
• Do you have time to read the manuscript carefully?
• Will other commitments interfere?

Conflicts of Interest:

You should decline if you have:

• A personal relationship with the author
• A professional rivalry or collaboration with the author
• Financial interest in the manuscript topic
• Institutional connections that could bias your review
• Previously reviewed this manuscript for another press

Manuscript Fit:

Some presses provide the abstract or partial manuscript with the invitation. Review this to ensure the topic matches your expertise.

Step 3: Responding to the Invitation #

Click the link in the invitation email to access the review request in OMP.

To Accept the Review:

1. Log in to OMP (create an account if you don’t have one)
2. You’ll see the review request details
3. Review the manuscript title, abstract, and deadlines
4. Click Accept Review, Continue to Step 2 (or similar button)
5. You may be asked to confirm you have no conflicts of interest
6. Proceed to access the manuscript files

To Decline the Review:

1. Click the link in the invitation email
2. Log in to OMP
3. Click Decline Review Request (or similar)
4. Optionally provide a reason for declining
5. If possible, suggest alternative reviewers

If You Cannot Meet the Deadline:

If you want to review but need more time:

1. Contact the editor before accepting
2. Use the Discussion feature or reply to the email
3. Request a deadline extension
4. Wait for confirmation before proceeding

Step 4: Accessing the Manuscript #

After accepting the review, you can access the manuscript files.

Downloading Files:

1. In your OMP dashboard, go to your assigned reviews
2. Click on the submission title to open the review page
3. Look for the Review Files section
4. Click on each file to download it to your computer
5. Download all provided files—there may be multiple documents

File Types You May Receive:

• Complete manuscript (Word or PDF)
• Individual chapters (for edited volumes)
• Figures and tables (if separate)
• Supplementary materials
• Author’s cover letter or synopsis

Note: For double-blind review, author identifying information should be removed. If you discover the author’s identity, notify the editor but continue with an objective review.

Step 5: Reading and Evaluating the Manuscript #

Read the manuscript thoroughly before forming your evaluation. Consider taking notes as you read.

Evaluation Criteria #

While specific criteria vary by press, reviewers typically assess:

Scholarly Contribution:

• Does the work make an original contribution to the field?
• Does it address an important question or problem?
• How does it advance existing knowledge?
• Is the contribution significant enough for book-length treatment?

Argument and Thesis:

• Is the central argument clear and compelling?
• Are claims well-supported by evidence?
• Is the logic sound throughout?
• Are counterarguments addressed?

Research Quality:

• Is the methodology appropriate and rigorous?
• Are sources adequate and properly used?
• Is the evidence sufficient and relevant?
• Are there gaps in the research?

Organization and Structure:

• Is the book well-organized?
• Does the structure serve the argument?
• Are chapters logically sequenced?
• Is there unnecessary repetition?

Writing Quality:

• Is the writing clear and accessible?
• Is the style appropriate for the audience?
• Are there grammatical or stylistic problems?
• Is the length appropriate?

Audience and Market:

• Who is the intended audience?
• Will the book appeal to that audience?
• How does it compare to existing books on the topic?
• Is there a market for this work?

For Edited Volumes #

When reviewing edited volumes, also consider:

• Coherence across chapters
• Quality consistency among contributions
• Editorial framing and introduction
• Whether chapters speak to each other
• Balance and coverage of the topic

Taking Notes #

As you read, note:

• Page numbers for specific comments
• Passages that are particularly strong
• Sections that need clarification
• Errors or inconsistencies
• Suggestions for improvement
• Questions for the author

Step 6: Completing the Review Form #

OMP uses structured review forms configured by each press. Forms typically include rating scales and open-ended questions.

Accessing the Review Form:

1. Return to your review in OMP
2. Click Continue or navigate to the review form step
3. The form displays questions and rating fields

Common Review Form Elements:

Rating Scales:

You may be asked to rate aspects like:

• Overall quality (Excellent / Good / Acceptable / Poor)
• Originality (High / Moderate / Low)
• Methodology (Sound / Needs Work / Unsound)
• Writing quality (Clear / Adequate / Needs Revision)
• Recommendation (Accept / Revise / Decline)

Answer each rating honestly based on your assessment.

Open-Ended Questions:

Forms typically include text fields for:

• Summary of the manuscript
• Major strengths
• Major weaknesses
• Specific suggestions for improvement
• Comments for the editor only (not shared with author)
• Comments for the author

Writing Your Review:

For Comments to the Author:

• Be constructive and professional
• Balance criticism with acknowledgment of strengths
• Provide specific, actionable suggestions
• Reference page numbers when discussing specific issues
• Explain why something is a problem, not just that it is
• Avoid personal attacks or harsh language
• Remember the author will read this

For Comments to the Editor (Confidential):

• Be candid about your overall assessment
• Note any concerns you couldn’t share with the author
• Explain your recommendation
• Mention any limitations in your review
• Flag potential ethical issues if relevant

Sample Review Structure #

Summary (1-2 paragraphs):

Briefly describe the manuscript’s purpose, argument, and approach. This confirms you understood the work.

Strengths (1-3 paragraphs):

Identify what the manuscript does well. Be specific about successful elements.

Areas for Improvement (2-4 paragraphs):

Discuss weaknesses or concerns. Organize by major issues first, then minor issues. Provide specific suggestions.

Minor Comments (optional list):

Note typos, citation errors, or small issues. Reference page numbers.

Recommendation:

State your overall recommendation and briefly justify it.

Step 7: Uploading Annotated Files (Optional) #

Some reviewers prefer to annotate the manuscript directly with comments.

If You Have Annotated the Manuscript:

1. In the review interface, look for Upload or Reviewer Files
2. Click to upload your annotated document
3. Select the file from your computer
4. Complete the upload

Annotation Tips:

• Use comment features rather than editing text directly
• Use track changes sparingly—you’re reviewing, not editing
• Keep comments professional and constructive
• Ensure comments are clearly visible

Note: Annotated files are optional. The review form is the primary method for submitting your evaluation.

Step 8: Submitting Your Review #

When your review is complete:

1. Verify all required form fields are completed
2. Check that your recommendation is selected
3. Upload any annotated files (if applicable)
4. Click Submit Review (or similar button)
5. Confirm the submission when prompted

After Submission:

• You receive a confirmation message
• The editor is notified of your completed review
• You cannot edit your review after submission (in most cases)
• Your review enters the editorial decision process

Step 9: After the Review #

What Happens Next:

The editor collects all reviews and makes an editorial decision. Possible outcomes include:

• Accept: Manuscript accepted as-is or with minor changes
• Revisions Required: Author asked to revise and resubmit
• Decline: Manuscript rejected

Will You See the Decision?

Policies vary by press. Some presses:

• Notify reviewers of the final decision
• Share other reviewers’ comments with you
• Invite you to review revised manuscripts
• Never contact you again about this submission

Reviewing Revisions:

If the author revises and resubmits, you may be invited to review the revision. Consider:

• Did the author address your concerns?
• Is the revision an improvement?
• Do new issues arise?

You can accept or decline revision review requests.

---

Review Timeline Best Practices #

Typical Review Timeline:

• Respond to invitation: Within 3-5 days
• Complete review: 2-4 weeks (varies by press)
• Request extension: Before deadline, not after

If You’ll Miss the Deadline:

1. Contact the editor immediately
2. Explain the situation
3. Propose a new deadline
4. Honor the new commitment

If You Must Withdraw:

Sometimes circumstances change. If you cannot complete the review:

1. Notify the editor as soon as possible
2. Apologize for the inconvenience
3. Return any materials if requested
4. Suggest alternative reviewers if possible

Confidentiality and Ethics #

Confidentiality Requirements:

• Do not share the manuscript with others
• Do not discuss the submission publicly
• Do not use the author’s ideas or data
• Destroy copies after review completion (if instructed)
• Do not contact the author directly about the review

Ethical Obligations:

• Evaluate objectively regardless of personal views
• Disclose any conflicts of interest
• Do not plagiarize from the manuscript
• Report suspected plagiarism or ethical violations to the editor
• Complete reviews you agree to undertake

Recognizing Bias:

Be aware of potential biases:

• Against unfamiliar methodologies
• Against conclusions you disagree with
• For or against certain institutions
• Based on writing style preferences

Strive for fair evaluation despite personal preferences.

Troubleshooting Common Issues #

Cannot Access Manuscript Files #

Issue: Files won’t download or open.

Solutions:

• Check your internet connection
• Try a different browser
• Clear browser cache
• Contact the editor for alternative file delivery

Review Form Won’t Submit #

Issue: Submit button doesn’t work or shows error.

Solutions:

• Check that all required fields are completed
• Look for validation error messages
• Try a different browser
• Save your responses externally and contact editor

Missed the Response Deadline #

Issue: Invitation expired before you responded.

Solution:

Contact the editor directly via email. They may be able to reissue the invitation if they still need reviewers.

Discovered Author Identity in Blind Review #

Issue: Author’s name appears in the manuscript despite blind review.

Solution:

Notify the editor. Continue reviewing objectively. Do not penalize the author for this error.

Unsure About Expertise #

Issue: After reading, you realize the manuscript is outside your expertise.

Solution:

Contact the editor immediately. Explain which aspects you can and cannot evaluate. The editor may ask you to provide a partial review or may reassign.

---

Tips for Writing Helpful Reviews #

Be Specific:

Instead of “The argument is weak,” say “The argument in Chapter 3 relies on assumption X, which is not supported by the evidence presented on pages 45-48.”

Be Constructive:

Instead of “This section is confusing,” say “This section would benefit from a clearer topic sentence and transitional phrases connecting paragraphs.”

Be Balanced:

Even deeply flawed manuscripts have some strengths. Even excellent manuscripts have room for improvement. Acknowledge both.

Be Professional:

Write as you would want to receive feedback. Avoid sarcasm, condescension, or personal attacks.

Be Thorough:

A brief review suggesting “reject” without explanation helps no one. Explain your reasoning.

Consider the Author:

Remember that authors invest years in their manuscripts. Deliver criticism with respect for their effort.

---

Quick Reference: Review Checklist #

Before Accepting:

• [ ] Topic matches my expertise
• [ ] I have time to complete by deadline
• [ ] I have no conflicts of interest

During Review:

• [ ] Downloaded and read all files
• [ ] Took notes while reading
• [ ] Evaluated all relevant criteria
• [ ] Prepared specific, constructive feedback

Completing the Form:

• [ ] Answered all required questions
• [ ] Selected recommendation
• [ ] Wrote comments for author
• [ ] Wrote confidential comments for editor (if applicable)
• [ ] Uploaded annotated files (if applicable)

After Submission:

• [ ] Confirmed submission was received
• [ ] Maintained confidentiality
• [ ] Disposed of manuscript copies appropriately

---

OMP Support from Altechmind #

If your press needs help configuring the review process, customizing review forms, or optimizing OMP workflows, Altechmind Technologies provides comprehensive OMP support services.

Explore OMP Services →

Contact Us →

---

About This Guide #

This guide is based on OMP 3.5. Interface elements may vary depending on your press’s configuration and theme. For official documentation, visit the PKP Documentation Hub.

Related Guides:

• OMP Book Publishing Guide: Complete Workflow for Authors and Editors
• Understanding Peer Review Models: Single-Blind, Double-Blind, and Open