Guide to Reviewers

Role of the Reviewer

Peer review is central to the scholarly process. As a reviewer, you help editors reach a fair, well-informed decision, and you help authors improve the quality and clarity of their manuscript. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and comments should be expressed clearly with supporting arguments.

Accepting an Assignment

Only agree to review a manuscript that falls within your area of expertise, and that you can assess within the requested timeframe. If you identify a conflict of interest — a financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal relationship with the authors — decline the assignment or disclose it to the editor before proceeding.

If you cannot complete a review by the agreed deadline, notify the editorial office as early as possible so an alternative reviewer can be found.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Do not share a manuscript, discuss its contents, or use unpublished information from it in your own work, without the written permission of the editor.

Conducting the Review

Evaluate the manuscript's originality, the soundness of its methodology, whether its conclusions are supported by the data presented, and the clarity of its presentation. Identify relevant published work the authors may have omitted, and note any substantial similarity between the manuscript and any other published paper of which you are aware.

Focus your comments on the science and presentation, not on the authors personally. Distinguish clearly between major concerns that affect the manuscript's validity and minor suggestions for improvement.

Structuring Your Report

A helpful review typically includes: a brief summary of the manuscript and its contribution; major concerns (methodological or interpretive issues that must be addressed); minor concerns (clarity, presentation, or minor technical points); and a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject) with supporting reasoning.

Comments intended only for the editor (for example, suspicions of misconduct) should be placed in a confidential comments section, separate from comments intended for the author.

Timeliness

Prompt review keeps the publication process moving for authors. Reviewers are expected to submit their report within the agreed deadline, and to respond to any editor follow-up in a timely manner.