Information for Reviewers
A useful peer review is independent, confidential, evidence based and specific enough to help an editor make a fair decision and an author improve the work.
1. Before accepting an invitation
Accept a review only when the manuscript is reasonably within your expertise and you can complete the review within the time agreed. Decline or contact the editor if you have a relationship, collaboration, competition, personal interest or other circumstance that could compromise or reasonably appear to compromise your independence.
2. Confidentiality
Treat the manuscript, supplementary files, reviewer correspondence and editorial information as confidential. Do not share the work, use unpublished ideas or data for personal advantage, or discuss the manuscript outside the authorised review process.
3. Artificial intelligence and external tools
Do not upload a confidential manuscript or substantial unpublished content to an AI service or other external tool unless the journal expressly permits it and confidentiality is protected. If a journal permits AI assistance in review, follow its policy, disclose the use when required and take full responsibility for the review you submit.
4. What to assess
- fit with the journal’s scope and the stated purpose of the manuscript;
- clarity and importance of the research question;
- appropriateness and reporting of methods, analysis and evidence;
- whether results support the interpretation and conclusions;
- appropriate use of tables, figures, references and supporting material;
- material ethical, authorship, reporting or publication-integrity concerns.
5. Writing the report
Begin with the main scientific or scholarly issues. Separate major concerns from minor corrections. Explain why a point matters and, where possible, what would allow the authors or editor to address it. Be direct without being insulting, dismissive or personal.
6. Integrity concerns
If you suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, image manipulation, unethical research or another serious problem, tell the editor and provide the evidence or reasoning that led to the concern. Do not investigate authors independently or contact them directly about a confidential review.
7. Recommendations and editorial decisions
Your recommendation should follow the options provided by the journal and should be consistent with the concerns in your report. Reviewers advise; the editor makes the final decision and may weigh several reviews, editorial assessment and journal policy.
8. Revision rounds
When asked to review a revision, focus on whether the authors addressed the important concerns and whether new changes introduce further issues. Do not repeatedly introduce unrelated requirements unless they are necessary to protect the quality or integrity of the work.
9. Recognition
Where a journal offers reviewer certificates or another form of recognition, the journal will provide the relevant information. Confidential details about the manuscript or review must not be disclosed merely to document reviewing activity.