Suggestions for Peer-Editors

1) be collegial: undertake task in a timely manner;  choose your words carefully; represent ATLAANZ (and wider) community as a whole

2) be supportive (Many ATLAANZ members are novice publishers; couch feedback positively: even a  'Reject' decision should be presented in such a way that author feels encouraged to try again).

3) conduct a review: unlike  a proof-reader or copy-editor, your role is to evaluate the merits of the article, focusing on the 'big picture' and its credibility as a whole: 
(i)  structure (coherence among Intro, body & Conclusion);
(ii) quality of sources, methods and methodologies,
(iii) logical flow of argument (or lack thereof), and validity of conclusions drawn.
(iv)  style, voice and lexical concerns, typos and errors, references, etc.

4) be professional: your aim is to help the author  make their work acceptable for publication.  Offer guidelines and suggestions for revision, either on the 'reviewer form' or by using track-changes and comments on the original doc (in which case make sure to remove identifying meta-data). Craft your comments carefully; proofread and check for tone (e.g. 'the argument would be tightened by addition of more literature" rather than 'argument is weak'), providing clear guidelines for author to work from. 

 See? You’re already doing all this in your day-to-day work with students.  Now is the chance to extend your skills and give back to the ATLAANZ community in the process.