Peer-review form
Designing Decision Governance
Reviewers: read the paper, then rate each criterion below as Meets, Partial, Not met or N/A, and leave a short comment where useful. Your progress is saved in this browser as you type. When finished, use Submit review to author to send it — you can also copy, download, email or print a copy for your records.
Reviewer
1. Clarity
0/6The paper communicates its purpose, definitions and argument in a way a critical reader can follow without ambiguity.
The paper's purpose and scope are stated explicitly in the abstract and introduction.
Every core term (Intentional Teaming, governance, fit, sociotechnical) is defined before it is used analytically.
The intended audience (practitioner-researcher, organisational designer) is identifiable from tone and framing.
Section headings map cleanly to a logical progression: problem → foundations → definition → architecture → implications.
Language is precise, non-marketing, and free of undefined jargon or metaphor treated as evidence.
Figures, diagrams and panels support the argument and are labelled and captioned.
2. Evidence use
0/6Claims are grounded in identifiable sources, appropriately classified, and represented without overstatement.
Every empirical or theoretical claim carries an in-text citation resolvable to the References list.
Sources are appropriate to their claim (systematic reviews and peer-reviewed studies for evidentiary claims; conceptual work or practitioner reflection labelled as such).
All references follow APA 7 and appear in the Research Library with sourceType metadata.
The Evidence classification section correctly identifies which claims are empirically supported, conceptually synthesised or reflective.
No practitioner reflection or conceptual proposition is presented as validated empirical finding.
Counter-evidence, alternative interpretations and disconfirming perspectives are acknowledged where relevant.
3. Traceability
0/6A reader can follow every claim from statement to source and every conceptual construct from origin to current formulation.
In-text citations use consistent author-date form and match the References entries exactly.
Peer-reviewed sources include a DOI or persistent URL where available.
Version, status and updated date are shown in the paper header and version-history section.
Original constructs (Intentional Teaming, Design Architecture, Diagnose → Configure → Enact → Observe → Adapt cycle) are marked as original contributions in development.
Related papers, frameworks and library sources are cross-linked and resolve correctly.
Suggested citation reflects the current version and matches the paper metadata.
4. Conceptual contribution
0/6The paper adds something identifiable to existing scholarship or practice, and is honest about what has and has not been established.
The original contribution is stated explicitly and distinguished from synthesised prior work.
The paper positions itself against adjacent literatures (team effectiveness, sociotechnical systems, organisation design, person–environment fit, collaborative organisation).
The contribution offers practical value: it changes how a designer or leader would diagnose or configure a team system.
Limitations, uncertainties and boundary conditions of the contribution are stated.
The paper identifies future research and empirical validation required to move constructs from conceptual to established.
The paper avoids claiming a new theory where only a synthesis, reframing or design orientation is offered.
Overall recommendation
Submitted reviews are saved to the author's review archive for later consideration. A paper is ready for publication when every criterion reaches Meets, and any remaining Partial or Not met items are either resolved, downgraded to a stated limitation, or recorded in the version history as a known gap.