OPEN ACCESSPEER REVIEWEDISSN 2576-9359
Reviewer Guidelines
Peer reviewers evaluate manuscripts for validity, rigor and clarity. This page sets out what the journal asks of a review and how a reviewer’s report is used.
BEFORE YOU ACCEPT
Before you accept an invitation
Two questions settle whether to accept: whether you can judge the work, and whether you can judge it impartially.
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
EXPERTISE
Accept where you can assess the manuscript’s central claims. Where you can judge part of it, say which part, so the editor can find a second opinion for the rest.
COMPETING INTERESTS
Decline where you have a competing interest: a shared institution, a current or recent collaboration, a financial relationship, or anything that would make an impartial assessment difficult. Where you are unsure, describe it to the handling editor and let them decide.
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
THE REPORT
Writing the review
A useful report tells the editor what the work establishes and tells the author how to strengthen it.
- 01
Summary
Two or three sentences on what the study did and what it contributes, so the editor can see that the work has been read as the authors intended.
- 02
Major points
Matters that affect whether the conclusions hold: design, controls, analysis, the fit between data and claims, and anything missing that the claims require.
- 03
Minor points
Matters of clarity and accuracy: wording, figure legibility, table structure, reference errors.
- 04
Recommendation
Accept, minor revision, major revision or reject, addressed to the editor. The decision itself rests with the editor.
Write the report you would want to receive: specific, evidence-based, and about the manuscript rather than its authors.
CONDUCT
Confidentiality and conduct
A manuscript under review is unpublished work entrusted to you.
- Treat the manuscript and your report as confidential. Do not share, discuss or post the content.
- Involve a colleague or trainee only with the handling editor’s agreement, and name them in your report.
- After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
- Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
- Use no idea, method or result from a manuscript in your own work before it is published.
- Report a suspected breach of publication ethics to the handling editor rather than acting on it yourself.
IN PRACTICE
Timing, and what happens after
The journal asks for a report within 14 days of accepting an invitation, and will reassign a manuscript whenever a reviewer needs to step back.
IF YOU NEED MORE TIME
Tell the handling editor as soon as you know. A short extension is usually straightforward; silence is what delays an author.
HOW YOUR REPORT IS USED
The editor reads the reports against the manuscript and takes the decision. Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of the reviewer’s own submissions. Decisions remain independent of fees, services, memberships and editorial or reviewing roles.
NEXT
The journal’s policies
The full policy set, the editor guidance and the author requirements are on the pages below.