Guidelines for Reviewers

Review Guidelines

Peer review in all its forms plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust, and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and unaware of their ethical obligations. Committee on Publication Ethics has produced some guidelines which set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process in research publication. The aim has been to make them generic so that they can be applied across disciplines. Follow the link below:

 COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Make sure the article you have been asked to review truly matches your expertise

The Editor who has approached you may not know your work intimately, and may only be aware of your work in a broader context. Only accept an invitation if you are competent to review the article.

Avoid a potential conflict of interest

A conflict of interest will not necessarily eliminate you from reviewing an article, but full disclosure to the editor will allow them to make an informed decision. For example; if you work in the same department or institute as one of the authors; if you have worked on a paper previously with an author; or you have a professional or financial connection to the article. These should all be listed when responding to the editor’s invitation for review.

Check that you have enough time

Reviewing an article can be quite time consuming. The time taken to review can vary greatly between disciplines and of course on article type, but on average, an article will take about 5 hours to review properly. Will you have sufficient time before the deadline stipulated in the invitation to conduct a thorough review?

Understand what it means to accept to review and manage deadlines

Deadlines for reviews vary per journal. The editors will provide information on deadline expectations with the review request. Let them know within a day or two that you got the request. They will appreciate being informed in a timely manner if you are able to complete the review or not. There are no consequences for refusing to review a paper. If you feel the review will take you longer to complete than normal, please contact the editor to discuss the matter. The editor may ask you to recommend an alternate reviewer, or may be willing to wait a little longer (e.g., if the paper is highly specialized and reviewers are difficult to find). As a general guideline, if you know you will not be able to complete a review within the time frame requested, you should decline to review the paper.

Duties of Reviewers

  • Importance of Peer Reviewing
    • Peer review is an essential part of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer Reviewers need to recognize the importance of their role and commit to contributing high quality work to the process of publishing scholarly research.
  • Promptness
    • Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a paper, or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process. If a selected referee agrees to review a paper, they should then adhere to timelines set by the editor.
  • Confidentiality
    • Any papers received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  • Standards of Objectivity
    • Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  • Study Ethics
    • Reviewers are encouraged to comment on ethical questions and possible research misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects, including animals).
  • Acknowledgement of Sources
    • Reviewers are encouraged to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  • Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
    • Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Questions to guide the reviewer in assessment of the paper:

Please provide examples and evidence for responses, do not simply answer yes or no.

  1. Topic and content:
    1. Is the topic relevant for the journal?
    2. Is the content important to the field?
    3. Is the work original? (If not, please give references)
  2. Title:
  • Does the title reflect the contents of the article?
  1. Abstract:
  • To what extent does the abstract reflect aspects of the study: background, objectives, methods, results and conclusions?
  1. Introduction / Background:
  • Is the study rationale adequately described?
  1. Objectives:
  • Are the study objectives clearly stated and defined?
  1. Methodology:
    1. To what extent is the study design appropriate and adequate for the objectives?
    2. Is the sample size appropriate and adequately justified?
    3. Is the sampling technique appropriate and adequately described?
    4. How well are the methods and instruments of data collection described?
    5. How well are techniques to minimize bias/errors documented?
  2. Ethical Consideration:
  • If there are issues related to ethics, are they adequately described? (For human studies, has ethical approval been obtained?)
  1. Analysis and results:
    1. Are the methods adequately described?
    2. Are the methods of data analysis appropriate?
    3. Do the results answer the research question?
    4. Are the results credible?
    5. Is statistical significance well documented (e.g. as confidence intervals or P-value)?
    6. Are the findings presented logically with appropriate displays and explanations?
  2. Discussion:
    1. How well are the key findings stated?
    2. To what extent have differences or similarities with other studies been discussed and reasons for these given?
    3. Are the findings discussed in the light of previous evidence?
    4. Are the implications of these findings clearly explained?
    5. Is the interpretation warranted by and sufficiently derived from and focused on the data and results?
  3. Conclusion(s):
  • Do the results justify the conclusion(s)?
  1. References:
    1. Are the references appropriate and relevant?
    2. Are they up to date?
    3. Are there any obvious, important references that should have been included and have not been?
    4. Do the references follow the recommended style?
    5. Are there any errors?
  2. Writing:
    1. Is the paper clearly written?
    2. Is the paper presented logically (e.g. correct information in each section, logical flow of arguments)?
    3. Are there problems with the grammar / spelling / punctuation / language?
  3. Provide a quick summary
  • It is helpful to provide a quick summary of the article at the beginning of your report. This serves the dual purpose of reminding the editor of the details of the report and also reassuring the author and editor that you have understood the article.
  1. Highlight key elements
  • The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section. Commentary should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name.
  1. Explain your judgement
  • Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.
  1. Classify your recommendation
  • When you make a recommendation regarding an article, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article:
  • Reject (explain reason in report)
  • Accept without revision
  • Revise (either major or minor)
  1. Identify the required revision
  • Clearly explain the kind of revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article.
  1. Acceptance/Rejection
  • The final decision of whether to accept or reject a particular manuscript lies with the editor. The journal plays no part in this decision. The editor will weigh all views and may call for a third opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision.