1.Does it truly match your area of expertise?

The Editor who has approached you may not be familiar with the details of your work, but rather may only be aware of your work in a broader context. Only accept an invitation if you are competent to review the article.

To help the Editor match you with the right paper, please keep your CV up to date with relevant keywords and institutional details.

2.Are you able to manage the deadlines given?

Deadlines for reviews vary per journal. You will be informed of the deadline when you are invited to review. Please let the Editor know that you received their request within a couple of days. Timeliness is an essential part of the review process and not replying to an invitation can significantly increase a papers time in review. There are no repercussions for declining an invitation to review.

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.

3.Double-blind peer review

The reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript. the respective identities of author and reviewer remain hidden. To help preserve the integrity of this process please do not reveal your name within the text of your review.

4.Duties of Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for acting promptly, adhering to the instructions for completing a review, and submitting it in a timely manner. Failure to do so undermines the review process. Every effort should be made to complete the review within the time requested. Please see 3.Duties of Reviewers for more details.

5.Preparing a report

5.1. Format

Follow journals’ instructions for writing and posting the review. If a particular format or scoring rubric is required, use the tools supplied by the journal. Be objective and constructive in your review, providing feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. For example, be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements, to help editors in their evaluation. Be professional and refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations.

5.2. Appropriate feedback

Bear in mind that the editor requires a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. We allow reviewers to provide confidential comments to the editor as well as comments to be read by the authors. The journal may also ask for a recommendation to accept/revise/reject; any recommendation should be congruent with the comments provided in the review. If you have not reviewed the whole manuscript, do indicate which aspects of the manuscript you have assessed. Ensure your comments and recommendations for the editor are consistent with your report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report that the authors will see. Confidential comments to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see your comments.

5.3. Language and style

Remember it is the authors’ paper, so do not attempt to rewrite it to your own preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important. In addition, be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues that are due to the authors writing in a language that is not their first or most proficient language, and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect.

5.4. Suggestions for further work

It is the job of the peer reviewer to comment on the quality and rigour of the work they receive. If the work is not clear because of missing analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted. It is not the job of the reviewer to extend the work beyond its current scope. Be clear which (if any) suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.

5.5. Accountability

Prepare the report by yourself, unless you have permission from the journal to involve another person. Refrain from making unfair negative comments or including unjustified criticisms of any competitors’ work that is mentioned in the manuscript. Refrain from suggesting that authors include citations to your (or an associate’s) work merely to increase citation counts or to enhance the visibility of your or your associate’s work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons. Do not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of your review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author.

6. Join us: as a Reviewer member.