For Reviewers

General Expectations

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts as objectively and impartially as possible and use their expertise to provide constructive feedback. Please refer to the COPE Peer Reviewer Guidelines.

  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review.
  • You are welcome to include students in the review process as part of their professional development; inform the Editorial Office if you do so.

Note: Authors are encouraged (or required, for some papers) to deposit datasets in public repositories. If a manuscript lacks a Data Availability Statement or other information needed for peer review, contact the Editorial Office.

The Editor-in-Chief or an editorial team member will review comments and make a final decision. Editor may edit reviewer comments to ensure clarity and anonymity.

Responding to an Invitation to Review

  • Read the abstract first. Accept the review if you can provide informed feedback on most parts of the manuscript.
  • Inform the Editor if:
    • Parts of the study are outside your expertise.
    • You are not familiar with specific methods or analyses.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest (e.g., close relationships with authors or institutions).
  • Reviews should be completed within 2 weeks. Request an extension if needed.
  • If you decline, please suggest alternative reviewers.
  • Familiarize yourself with the reviewer submission form before beginning your review.

Peer Review Checklist

1. Topic and Scope

  • Does the manuscript fit the journal’s aims and scope?

2. Title and Abstract

  • Title accurately reflects the paper’s topic.
  • Abstract reflects topic, methods, results, and relevance.

3. Introduction

  • Clear background and literature review.
  • Logical structure and clear hypothesis/aims.

4. Materials and Methods

  • Appropriate techniques and justified choices.
  • Ethical standards for human/animal research followed.
  • Clear and replicable methodology.
  • Appropriate statistical analysis.

5. Results, Data, and Figures

  • Accurate interpretation of data.
  • All key data included.
  • Clear and descriptive figure/table titles and legends.
  • Data access details match Data Availability Statement.

6. Discussion and Conclusion

  • Logical structure.
  • Assumptions and limitations discussed.
  • Conclusions supported by data.

7. Other Considerations

  • Relevance, novelty, and originality of the research.
  • Adequacy and appropriateness of cited literature.
  • General presentation and language quality.

Writing Your Review

  • Begin with a summary of the manuscript.
  • Provide a balanced evaluation: highlight strengths and outline weaknesses.
  • Number your points for clarity.
  • Support critical comments with:
    • Specific examples from the manuscript.
    • References to relevant literature.

Consider organizing weaknesses as:

  • Major Concerns
  • Minor Concerns
  • Do not proofread or focus on grammar; if serious language issues exist, note that another revision may be needed.
  • Address any ethical or scientific accuracy issues clearly and specifically.
  • Specify what further information would address your concerns.

Final Recommendation

Choose one:

  • Accept
  • Reject
  • Reject with encouragement to resubmit (state required changes clearly)

Comments to the Editor (Confidential)

You may also submit confidential comments to the Editor:

  • Flag concerns about the manuscript’s integrity.

  • Suggest a commentary article or potential authors for one.

Peer Review Resources

  • Mohty & Melo (2025), How to Provide a High-Quality Peer Review
  • Matthias Rillig, Reviewing a Paper for a Journal (Life in Academia – YouTube)