Reviewer Guidelines

1. Before You Begin

Consider the following points before accepting or declining a review invitation:

  • Does the article fall within your area of expertise? Please only accept if you believe you can contribute effectively to the peer review process.
  • Is there a conflict of interest? If so, it must be disclosed to the editor in your response.
  • Do you have time to conduct the review? Reviewing requires a commitment. If unsure about meeting the deadline, it is better to decline.
  • Do you need guidance on the peer review process? Please refer to Elsevier Researcher Academy and the Certified Peer Reviewer Course.

It is essential to respond promptly, whether you accept or decline. Delays prolong the editorial process, affecting author timelines. When declining, suggesting alternative reviewers is appreciated.

2. Managing Your Review

Confidential Material

Accepted reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential. Do not share or disclose the content without the editor’s approval.

How to Access Your Review

Use the link in your invitation email to access the manuscript and dashboard. Contact the section editor or journal manager if issues arise.

Methodology of Reviewing

For experimental studies, examine the methods thoroughly. Major flaws include:

  • Unsound or inapplicable methods
  • Use of disproven or inappropriate procedures
  • Omission of essential steps impacting results
  • Unsupported conclusions

In analytical studies, ensure sampling is appropriate and clearly presented. In qualitative research, confirm systematic data analysis and descriptive richness.

Research/Study Data and Visualizations

Review all figures, tables, and images for accuracy and clarity. Look for links to datasets or identifiers (e.g., gene accession numbers) as part of the database linking program. Major concerns may include insufficient data, non-significant variation, or ambiguous tables.

Ethical Considerations

Ensure all experiments involving humans or animals have ethical approvals and documentation. Refer to the journal’s Animal Welfare Policy if applicable.

Overview

If no critical issues are found, allow time for reflection before finalizing your review. Review the manuscript again from a fresh perspective. Always check the journal’s author guidelines.

3. Design Your Review

A review helps both the editor in their decision and the author to improve their work. Start with an overview, followed by numbered, section-specific comments (methodology, theory, clarity, results). Be courteous and constructive. Avoid personal details or ad hominem remarks. Provide detailed, evidence-based reasoning for your feedback.

4. Your Recommendation

Recommendations may include:

  • Reject – with clear explanation
  • Accept without revisions – if no changes are needed
  • Minor revisions – small changes; likely to return to you
  • Major revisions – significant changes; indicate if you want to re-review

Always justify your recommendation to help the editor and author understand your view.

5. Final Decision

The editor holds the final decision-making authority. Input may be gathered from other editors or reviewers. You may be notified of the final outcome if the journal’s system allows.

6. After Reviewing

Reviewers must uphold confidentiality beyond the review process. Do not share or discuss manuscript contents unless given explicit editor permission.

Thank you from the editorial board for your time and expertise. Your role is critical to maintaining scholarly quality and improving published work.