For Reviewers
Reviewer Guidelines
This guide explains how we invite, support, and recognise reviewers, along with the standards we expect for confidential, fair, and high-value peer review.
Find a journal in your field
Effective review starts with subject fit. Reviewers should accept invitations only when the manuscript clearly aligns with their expertise and when they can assess the methods, evidence, and contribution with confidence.
If you are exploring opportunities to review, begin by identifying journals whose scope closely matches your discipline, methods, and publication history.
Before accepting an invitation, ask:
- Does the topic fall within my active area of scholarship?
- Can I evaluate the evidence and methods without relying on guesswork?
- Am I available to return a thorough report on time?
- Is there any conflict or relationship that could compromise independence?
Peer review and the editorial procedure
Submitted manuscripts typically move through an initial editorial screening before external peer review. Editors assess scope, completeness, policy compliance, and baseline scholarly readiness. Suitable papers are then assigned to independent reviewers for expert evaluation.
Editorial pre-check
Scope fit, completeness, ethics, and formatting are reviewed before external invitation.
Reviewer invitation
Reviewers are selected for subject expertise, independence, and availability.
Assessment and report
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and submit reasoned comments and a recommendation.
Decision and revision
Editors weigh the reports and decide on revision, rejection, or acceptance.
Reviewer profile and responsibilities
Reviewers play a central role in protecting the quality of the scholarly record. We look for reviewers with demonstrated subject knowledge, a visible publication or research profile, and the ability to provide balanced, evidence-based feedback.
- Accept reviews only within your verified area of competence.
- Declare conflicts of interest immediately and decline when impartiality is uncertain.
- Keep manuscripts, data, and editorial correspondence confidential.
- Provide clear, respectful, and decision-useful feedback within the agreed timeline.
Strong reviewer profiles usually include
Recognised academic or professional affiliation.
Recent research activity in the manuscript’s subject area.
Familiarity with the relevant methods, standards, and reporting norms.
A track record of constructive communication and timely response.
Recognition and reviewer benefits
Peer review is professional service. High-quality reviewing may be recognised through certificates, annual acknowledgements, invitations to recurring reviewer pools, or consideration for broader editorial involvement, depending on journal practice.
Service records
Review activity can support academic service portfolios and institutional reporting when documented appropriately.
Certificates
Verified reviewers may be eligible for reviewer or member certificates through the platform workflow.
Long-term opportunities
Consistent, rigorous reviewers may be invited into recurring reviewer boards or deeper journal participation.
Reviewer board and volunteer pathway
Journals may maintain active reviewer pools or boards made up of scholars who regularly support editorial assessment. These reviewers are expected to be responsive, provide dependable reports, and help maintain review quality across recurring invitations.
Typical pathway
- 1. Build a visible research profile aligned with journal scope.
- 2. Complete high-quality reviews with timely, constructive reports.
- 3. Maintain professionalism, confidentiality, and conflict-free practice.
- 4. Become eligible for recurring reviewer invitations or board participation.
General guidelines for reviewers
Invitation to review
Respond promptly. If declining, do so early enough for editors to invite an alternative reviewer.
Conflicts of interest
Do not review manuscripts where professional, financial, personal, or institutional factors may bias your assessment.
Confidentiality
Do not share, upload, circulate, or reuse unpublished manuscript content outside the editorial process.
Tone and evidence
Keep comments professional, specific, and grounded in scholarly reasoning rather than preference or personal style.
Use of tools
Protect confidentiality at all times and avoid using external systems in ways that expose unpublished content.
Ethics alerts
Raise concerns about plagiarism, data irregularities, image manipulation, or ethical compliance directly with editors.
What a strong review report includes
Recommended structure
- A short opening summary of the paper’s aim, main contribution, and overall impression.
- Major comments on originality, method, evidence, interpretation, and scholarly significance.
- Specific comments tied to sections, tables, figures, claims, or missing information.
- Constructive suggestions that authors can act on clearly and efficiently.
Questions worth asking
- Is the manuscript relevant, well structured, and clear for the journal’s audience?
- Are the methods, controls, and data presentation sufficient to support the conclusions?
- Are references current, balanced, and free from unnecessary citation pressure?
- Are ethics, transparency, and reproducibility expectations met?
Recommendations and final decisions
Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not replace them. Editors evaluate the full set of reports, manuscript revisions, policy issues, and scope considerations before issuing a final outcome.
Accept
The manuscript is suitable for publication with no further substantive change.
Minor revision
The paper is publishable after limited clarification, correction, or small improvements.
Major revision
Important issues must be addressed before the work can be reconsidered seriously.
Reject
The manuscript does not meet the journal’s threshold for validity, originality, fit, or integrity.