Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
Deliver evidence-based, constructive reviews that improve editorial decisions and manuscript quality.
What Strong Reviews Include
Prioritize methodological validity, reporting clarity, and practical relevance.
High-quality reviews identify major scientific risks, separate critical corrections from optional enhancements, and provide section-linked actionable feedback. Constructive specificity improves editorial adjudication and author response quality.
Where concerns are substantial, explain the methodological reason and expected correction path. Avoid broad non-actionable criticism that cannot be operationalized in revision.
Reviewer Ethics
Maintain confidentiality, declare conflicts, and avoid external sharing.
Reviewers should disclose conflicts early, respect manuscript confidentiality, and provide balanced, professional recommendations based on evidence quality. For policy questions, contact [email protected].
Deliver High-Utility Reviewer Reports
Useful reviews are specific, prioritized, and evidence-led.
Separate major validity concerns from minor presentation improvements so editors can make proportional decisions. Vague feedback increases revision ambiguity and slows decision cycles.
Link comments to manuscript sections and explain methodological consequences of each major issue. This helps authors respond precisely and improves second-round review quality.
Use professional language and avoid speculative criticism unsupported by submitted evidence.
Write Reviews That Drive Better Decisions
Clear structure and prioritization improve editorial usability.
Strong reviewer reports explain why each major issue matters for validity and what evidence would resolve the concern. This structure helps editors adjudicate proportionately and supports efficient author revision.
Maintain concise, section-linked recommendations and avoid unsupported assumptions beyond submitted evidence.
End Reviews with a Clear Decision Signal
Structured closure improves adjudication speed and decision confidence.
Reviewer reports are most effective when they include a brief acceptance-readiness summary: what is strong, what is critical to fix, and what is optional. This summary helps editors issue faster, better-proportioned decisions and supports efficient author revisions. Structured closure statements increase report usability.
A brief closing recommendation on acceptance readiness helps editors make proportional decisions and reduces ambiguity during adjudication. Structured reviewer summaries improve editorial adjudication speed and reduce avoidable clarification rounds.
Structured closure helps editors decide faster and more consistently across complex submissions. Prioritized summaries improve decision quality and reviewer impact across complex submissions.
Prioritized comments also improve revision efficiency and editorial interpretation consistency. Structured summaries support faster editorial adjudication and improve final editorial confidence.
Clarity improves review value. Prioritized feedback improves final decisions.
Support Better Peer Review
Use these standards to deliver useful, fair, and high-impact reviewer reports.
For support: [email protected]
