Guideline to Reviewers

Competing interests: Make sure to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. You should bring up any potential competing interests if you are unsure if they would prevent you from reviewing. Contradictory interests can be of a personal, monetary, intellectual, professional, political, or religious nature. You shouldn't accept to review if you are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or if you have recently (i.e., within the last three years) been a mentor, mentee, close collaborator, or joint grant holder. Also, you shouldn't agree to evaluate a manuscript only to see it with no plans to submit a review or one that is extremely similar to one you have prepared or that is being considered by another journal.

Timeliness: Even if you are unable to complete the review, it is polite to respond to a request to peer review within a reasonable amount of time. If you feel qualified to evaluate a specific paper, you should only accept to review it if you can do it within the specified or otherwise agreed-upon time range. If your situation changes and you are unable to keep to your initial agreement or if you need an extension, always notify the journal right once. If you are unable to review, it is beneficial to recommend substitute reviewers based on their qualifications, without regard to personal preferences or any desire for the submission to be given a particular result (either positive or negative).

Scope of the Journal: As a reviewer, it is essential to ensure that the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal. Please verify that the subject matter, research objectives, and overall theme of the article align with the journal’s focus and target audience. If you find that the manuscript does not fit within the journal's scope, kindly highlight this concern in your review to assist the editorial team in making an informed decision. Your feedback in this regard is highly valued and critical to maintaining the quality and relevance of the journal's content.

Conducting a review

Initial steps: Reviewer instructions, needed ethical and policy statements, and supplemental information should all be carefully read. If anything is unclear, contact the journal again and ask for any missing or incomplete materials you require. You shouldn't get in touch with the writers personally without the journal's consent. Before starting, it's crucial to know the review's parameters (for example, will raw data analysis be included?).

Confidentiality: Avoid exploiting information discovered during the peer review process to your own or another's advantage, or to disadvantage or disparage others. Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process. Never review a manuscript with anyone else (including early career researchers you are training) unless the journal has given you permission to do so. All people who assisted with the review should be identified by name so that they can be listed with the manuscript in the journal's files and receive credit for their work.

Bias and competing interests: Avoid exploiting information discovered during the peer review process to your own or another's advantage, or to disadvantage or disparage others. Respect the confidentiality of the peer review. Never review a manuscript with anyone else (including early career researchers you are training) unless the journal has given you permission to do so. All people who assisted with the review should be identified by name so that they can be listed with the manuscript in the journal's files and receive credit for their work.

Suspicion of ethics violations: Inform the journal of any ethical violations you come across in study or publication. A substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published piece, for instance, may cause you to wonder whether misconduct occurred during the research, the writing, or the submission of the manuscript. Contact the editor directly if you have any questions about these or any other ethical issues; do not try to look into them on your own. It is okay to work with the journal in confidence, but you shouldn't personally conduct more research unless the journal specifically requests it. 

Transferability of peer review: Peer review transfers to other journals in the publisher's portfolio may be governed by publisher policies (sometimes referred to as portable or cascading peer review). If it is journal policy, reviewers may be prompted to consent to the transfer of their reviews. If you are asked to examine a manuscript that has been turned down by one journal and then submitted to another, you should be ready to review it from scratch because it might have changed between the two submissions and the journal's standards for evaluation and acceptance might differ. Providing your original evaluation for the new journal (with permission from the original publication) may be suitable in the interests of efficiency and transparency. You should clarify that you previously reviewed the submission and make note of any changes. (For further information on some of the problems with portable peer review, see discussion2 with Pete Binfield and Elizabeth Moylan).

Preparing a report

Format: Observe the guidelines provided by journals for writing and uploading the review. Use the resources provided by the journal if a specific format or grading criteria are needed. In your review, be unbiased and helpful, offering suggestions that can help the authors better their work. For instance, to assist editors in their judgement, be precise in your criticism and include corroborating evidence with the relevant references to back general claims. Be professional, avoid being aggressive or provocative, and avoid making libellous or disparaging remarks about another person or making baseless charges.

Appropriate feedback: Keep in mind that the editor expects a fair, honest, and objective evaluation of the manuscript's advantages and disadvantages. The majority of journals enable reviewers to submit both private remarks to the editor and comments that the authors can read. A suggestion to accept, amend, or reject may also be requested by the journal; any such advice must be consistent with the reviewer's comments. Indicate which parts of the manuscript you have evaluated if you haven't read the entire thing. The majority of feedback should be included in the report that the authors will see. Make sure your comments and suggestions for the editor are consistent with your report for the writers.

Language and style: Keep in mind that the editor expects a fair, honest, and objective evaluation of the manuscript's advantages and disadvantages. The majority of journals enable reviewers to submit both private remarks to the editor and comments that the authors can read. A suggestion to accept, amend, or reject may also be requested by the journal; any such advice must be consistent with the reviewer's comments. Indicate which parts of the manuscript you have evaluated if you haven't read the entire thing. The majority of feedback should be included in the report that the authors will see. Make sure your comments and suggestions for the editor are consistent with your report for the writers.

Suggestions for further work: Peer reviewers are tasked with providing feedback on the calibre and rigour of the work they receive. The reviewer should comment and explain what further analyses would be necessary to make the work submitted clear if it is unclear due to missing analyses. The reviewer's role is not to expand the work's current boundaries. Indicate which (if any) suggested additional studies are necessary to bolster the assertions made in the paper being considered and which will just enhance or extend the work.

Accountability: Unless the journal has given you permission to involve another individual, prepare the report all by yourself. Avoid unfairly criticising competitors' work that is mentioned in the text or making unfair unfavourable remarks about it. Avoid requesting that authors cite your (or an associate's) work solely to raise the number of citations or boost the exposure of your (or your associate's) work; requests must be supported by legitimate academic or technological grounds. Do not purposefully drag out the review process by delaying the submission of your review or by asking pointless clarifications from the author or the journal. If you, as the editor, decide to review a manuscript yourself (perhaps if another reviewer was unable to provide a report), do so openly and not in the guise of a pseudonymous additional reviewer.

What to consider after peer review

Whenever a journal asks you to examine modifications or resubmissions of a manuscript you have already reviewed, attempt to comply if at all possible. It is beneficial to respond quickly and give the necessary information if a journal contacts you with issues linked to your review. Similarly, get in touch with the journal if any pertinent information surfaces after you've completed your review and could have an impact on your initial comments and suggestions. Whenever a journal asks you to examine modifications or resubmissions of a manuscript you have already reviewed, attempt to comply if at all possible. It is beneficial to respond quickly and give the necessary information if a journal contacts you with issues linked to your review. Similarly, get in touch with the journal if any pertinent information surfaces after you've completed your review and could have an impact on your initial comments and suggestions.