For Reviewers

For Reviewers

For Reviewers

The Importance of Peer Review

Peer review is fundamental to scholarly publishing and scientific progress. As a reviewer, you play a critical role in maintaining the quality and integrity of published research. Your expert evaluation helps authors improve their work and ensures readers can trust the published literature.

Become a Reviewer

Who Can Be a Reviewer?

We welcome reviewers who:

  • Hold a PhD, MD, or equivalent terminal degree in relevant field
  • Have published research in peer-reviewed journals
  • Possess expertise in specific subject areas relevant to our scope
  • Can commit to timely, thorough, and objective reviews
  • Understand and adhere to ethical standards of peer review

How to Join Our Reviewer Pool

  1. Register an account on our journal website
  2. Complete your profile including:
    • Areas of expertise/keywords
    • Academic position and affiliation
    • ORCID iD (recommended)
    • Biography and qualifications
  3. Select "Reviewer" role during registration
  4. Specify review interests - topics you're qualified to review

Alternatively, email your CV and areas of expertise to: editor@[journaldomain].com

The Review Process

Step 1: Review Invitation

  • Receive email invitation with manuscript title and abstract
  • Respond within 3 days - accept or decline
  • Decline if you have conflicts of interest, lack expertise, or cannot meet deadline
  • Suggest alternative reviewers if declining

Step 2: Accessing the Manuscript

  • Log in to your reviewer account
  • Download manuscript and supplementary files
  • Note the review deadline (typically 2-3 weeks)
  • Request extension if needed (before deadline)

Step 3: Conducting the Review

  • Read manuscript thoroughly, including methods and supplementary materials
  • Evaluate based on journal's review criteria
  • Prepare detailed, constructive comments
  • Complete online review form
  • Submit recommendation and comments before deadline

Step 4: After Submission

  • Editor reviews your comments and makes decision
  • You may be asked to review revised manuscript
  • Receive notification when editor makes final decision
  • May see other reviewers' comments (at editor's discretion)

Review Criteria

Key Aspects to Evaluate

1. Originality and Significance
  • Does the work make a novel contribution?
  • Is it relevant and important to the field?
  • Does it advance knowledge significantly?
2. Methodology
  • Are methods appropriate and rigorous?
  • Is the experimental design sound?
  • Are sample sizes adequate?
  • Are controls appropriate?
  • Can the work be reproduced from the description?
3. Data Analysis and Statistics
  • Are statistical methods appropriate?
  • Are results properly analyzed and presented?
  • Are figures and tables clear and informative?
  • Is data interpretation sound?
4. Conclusions
  • Are conclusions supported by data?
  • Are limitations acknowledged?
  • Are interpretations reasonable?
  • Is speculation clearly identified?
5. Literature and Context
  • Is relevant literature cited?
  • Is the work placed in proper context?
  • Are references current and appropriate?
6. Presentation
  • Is the manuscript well-organized?
  • Is writing clear and concise?
  • Are figures and tables effective?
  • Is English language quality adequate?
7. Ethics
  • Is ethics approval documented?
  • Is informed consent mentioned?
  • Are there ethical concerns?
  • Are conflicts of interest declared?

Writing Your Review

Review Structure

1. Summary (2-3 paragraphs)

  • Brief overview of the study
  • Main findings
  • Overall assessment

2. Major Comments

  • Significant issues affecting validity or interpretation
  • Methodological concerns
  • Major revisions needed
  • Each point clearly numbered

3. Minor Comments

  • Specific corrections or clarifications
  • Suggestions for improvement
  • Editorial issues
  • Reference to specific page/line numbers

Best Practices

DO:

  • Be constructive and respectful
  • Provide specific, actionable feedback
  • Support criticisms with evidence
  • Distinguish between major and minor issues
  • Suggest how to improve the work
  • Acknowledge the work's strengths
  • Use clear, professional language

DON'T:

  • Be dismissive or disrespectful
  • Make vague criticisms
  • Request unnecessary additional work
  • Promote your own work excessively
  • Be influenced by writing quality over science
  • Reject without providing reasons

Review Recommendations

Accept

The manuscript is publishable in its current form (rare on first submission)

Minor Revisions

The manuscript is scientifically sound but requires minor changes to improve clarity or address small issues

Major Revisions

The manuscript has merit but requires substantial revisions to methodology, analysis, interpretation, or presentation

Reject

The manuscript has fundamental flaws that cannot be addressed through revision, or does not meet the journal's standards

Confidential Comments to Editor

You may provide separate confidential comments to the editor that will not be shared with authors:

  • Suspicions of misconduct or ethical violations
  • Concerns about originality or plagiarism
  • Issues with data integrity
  • Strong recommendation for or against publication
  • Suggestions for additional reviewers

Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities

Confidentiality

  • Treat manuscripts as confidential documents
  • Do not share with others without permission
  • Do not use unpublished information for personal benefit
  • Destroy copies after review completion

Conflicts of Interest

Decline to review if you have:

  • Recent collaboration with authors (past 3 years)
  • Current or past employment at same institution
  • Personal relationships with authors
  • Financial interests in the research
  • Strong personal biases for/against the work
  • Competitive research interests

Objectivity

  • Evaluate work based on scientific merit only
  • Be free from personal, financial, or intellectual bias
  • Disregard authors' nationality, gender, or institution
  • Base decisions on evidence, not opinion

Timeliness

  • Complete reviews by agreed deadline
  • Request extension if needed (as early as possible)
  • Decline promptly if unable to review

Professional Conduct

  • Provide respectful, constructive feedback
  • Avoid personal criticism of authors
  • Use professional language
  • Alert editors to suspected ethical violations

Reviewer Recognition

How We Recognize Reviewers

  • Annual acknowledgment - List of reviewers published yearly
  • Certificates - Review certificates provided upon request
  • Publons/Web of Science - Reviews trackable for academic credit
  • Outstanding reviewer awards - Annual recognition of exceptional reviewers
  • Waived APCs - Editorial board reviewers receive publication discounts

Building Your Review Record

  • Create Publons/Web of Science account
  • Link your reviews for academic credit
  • Track your review contributions
  • Include on CV and promotion applications

Reviewer Guidelines and Resources

Training and Support

Time Commitment

  • Initial review: 3-5 hours per manuscript (varies by complexity)
  • Review of revisions: 1-2 hours
  • Deadline: Typically 2-3 weeks from invitation acceptance

Join Our Reviewer Community

Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publishing. By joining our reviewer pool, you contribute to:

  • Maintaining research quality in your field
  • Helping authors improve their work
  • Advancing scientific knowledge
  • Building your professional reputation
  • Staying current with latest research

Contact Us

Questions about reviewing for our journal?

  • Email: editor@[journaldomain].com
  • Subject: Reviewer Inquiry

We value our reviewers and are committed to supporting your important work!

Note: Replace [journaldomain].com with the actual journal domain when implementing.