Reviewer Guidance

Peer-reviewers should consider the following aspects when preparing the report - needless to
say, they are free to make any additional comments they feel necessary or helpful.

  1. Is the work a relevant and innovative contribution to the field, also in comparison with other publications on the same subject?
  2. Does the work satisfy the expectations raised by the title?
  3. Do you think that the Author has made sufficient use of sources, be it primary or secondary?
    In case, notice any serious omissions in this respect.
  4. Is the work well organized and the writing clear? Is any rewriting, rearrangement of the content, expansion, or condensation desirable?
  5. Are there obvious and systematic flaws to be found in translations and transcriptions? If so, please send us a specimen of the flaws you found.

Choose assignments wisely

You should agree to review a manuscript only if you have the appropriate subject expertise and a sufficient amount of time to complete the review, in accordance with the journal deadline.

Provide an objective, honest, and unbiased review

→ Declare any potentially competing interests and/or recuse yourself from assignments if you have a conflict of interest.
→ Make sure your perspective is not influenced by authors’ origins, nationality, beliefs, gender, or other characteristics.
→ Do not impersonate another individual in your work as a reviewer.

Honor the confidentiality of the review process

Do not share information about manuscripts or reviews during or after peer review, and do not use any information from the review process for your own advantage.

Be respectful and professional

Make sure your review comments are professional. Keep your focus on the work and not on the individuals.

Reviewing process

This first step consists of the following sections:

Request for Review: provides some text inviting you to act as a reviewer.

Article Title: provides the title of the article.

Abstract: provides the abstract text.

From here, you can decline or accept the review. If you decline, you will be dropped from the process. If you accept, you will move to review step 2, where you would be able to read any reviewer guidelines provided by the journal.

Hit Continue to move to step 3. From here you can download a copy of the review files and enter your review comments. The first window is for comments to the editor and the author; the second window is just for the editor.

Once you have read the paper and added your comments, scroll down the page to optionally upload a marked up copy of the review file (remember to strip any personal identification from the file before uploading it).

Next, you must then make your recommendation using the dropdown menu.

Your choices include:

Accept Submission: it is ready to go to Copyediting as is.

Revisions Required: it requires minor changes that can be reviewed and accepted by the editor.

Resubmit for Review: it requires major changes and another round of peer review.

Resubmit Elsewhere: it doesn’t seem like a good fit for the focus and scope of this journal.

Decline Submission: it has too many weakness to ever be accepted.

See Comments: if none of the above recommendations make sense, you can leave a comment for the editor detailing your concerns.

Finally, hit the Submit Review button to complete your task. You’ll be asked to confirm.

Competing Interests

When you are invited to review a manuscript, check for any competing interests that may exist between you and the authors.

Here are some questions to ask yourself: If you answer yes to any of these questions you should declare them as a competing interest to the journal before you accept the invitation to review.

Could you profit or be negatively impacted financially by the submitted research?

Do you have a personal relationship with the authors?

Are you and the authors rivals or competitors?

Have you recently worked at the same institution or organization as the authors?

Have you or are you currently collaborating with the authors?

Have you published with the authors during the last 5 years?

Do you or have you held grants with the authors?

Declaring competing interests

If one of these situations applies to you, or if you think you have a competing interest that’s not listed here, get in touch with the journal right away. Depending on the situation, the journal editors may ask you to review anyway, or decide to find a different reviewer.