Sign inSubmit
Review and edit

Guide for reviewers

What we ask of a reviewer, how the form works, and what you get back.

Become a reviewer
  1. Step 1Before you acceptExpertise, time, conflicts
  2. Step 2While you reviewConfidential, on time, ethical
  3. Step 3What to assessTen questions, from scope to format
  4. Step 4Your recommendationFive options, for every journal
  5. Step 5Writing the reportFor the authors; for the editor only
  6. Step 6After you submitSecond rounds and recognition

Before you accept

  • Does the manuscript match your areas of expertise?
  • Do you have time for a detailed review now?
  • Do you have a conflict of interest with any author?
  • Are you writing a paper on the same topic?

Accept or decline from the link in the invitation email; you do not need to sign in. Please answer within 5 days (a reminder comes the day before); after that the invitation closes and the editor invites someone else. A quick decline helps the editor more than a late accept.

While you review

ConfidentialShare nothing without the office’s permission, never upload the manuscript or your report to a generative AI tool, and never use its data or ideas. Ask the office before involving a colleague.
On timeReviews are due 21 days after the invitation. If you need longer, ask for more time from the review page.
EthicalTell the editor if you suspect copied work or claims that rest on opinion rather than data.

What to assess

1Originality and scopeIs the work new, and does it fit the journal?

Is the research topic a current and innovative idea? Is there any discussion on this matter and is it related to the scope of the journal? Has there been any previous research in this area? If so, is there any need for further research? Would the journal or any reader benefit from this article? Is there significant interest in this area of research?

2TitleDoes the title say what the article is about, briefly?

Does the title properly explain the purpose and objective of the article? Is it too lengthy (Readers usually prefer clear and concise titles)?

3AbstractDoes the abstract summarise the work clearly?

Does the abstract contain an appropriate summary for the article? Is the language used in the abstract easy to read and understand? Are there any suggestions for improvement?

4IntroductionIs the background adequate and the aim clear?

Do the authors provide adequate background on the topic and reason for this article? Does this section describe what the authors hoped to achieve? The introduction should provide a detailed outline for the article including the proposed experiment, the research method and results.

5Materials and methodsCould others repeat the work from this description?

Is there detailed information on the experiment and research? Do the authors approach the subject with the proper method? Do they provide sufficient reasoning for their approach? Are the sample data and design clearly outlined? Can readers use the information given to replicate the research? Are all the measurements, equipment and materials adequately described?

6ResultsAre the results clear and supported by evidence?

Are the results presented in a clear manner? Do the authors provide accurate research results? Is there sufficient evidence for each result?

7ConclusionDo the data support the conclusions?

Is there any flaws in the research results and methodology? Does the research provide ample data for the authors to make their conclusion? Have the authors highlighted their future implications and usage of their research? Is there any scope for further improvement? Did the authors outline the objective of their conclusions?

8Tables and figuresAre they needed, original and referred to in the text?

Are all the tables and figures used in the manuscript of high quality and original? Do they supplement the research? Are they properly referred to in the text?

9LanguageIs the English clear enough to follow?

Is the English used in the manuscript easy to understand and properly used? Should the authors use an English Language Service to allow readers and easier understanding of their research? Highlight any minor grammar or punctuation issues that should be resolved by the authors.

10FormattingMatters least: the office reformats accepted papers.

The formatting of the article is an important part of the evaluation process but reviewers should not focus their decision based on this. If a manuscript has been accepted, the SciPub team reformats the manuscript according to our template. Just keep in mind the following points: Does the article follow the journal’s format available online in the Instructions for Authors? Do all paragraphs, tables and figures have proper headings?

Your recommendation

AcceptPublish as it is.
Minor revisionSmall changes; the editor checks them.
Major revisionSubstantial changes; usually reviewed again.
Reject and resubmitNot in this form; a new submission is welcome.
RejectNot suitable for the journal.

Writing the report

For the authors: your overall impression and the reasons for your recommendation, then every change you ask for, as a list they can work through.

For the editor only: anything the authors should not see, such as a suspected ethics problem.

Your name: Reviewers’ names are never shown to authors.

After you submit

1A revised version may come backCheck that your concerns were answered; you may be asked for a second round.2Your certificateThe handling editor reads and approves each report; if the editor has not done so within 3 days, the office may approve it. Once your report is approved, its certificate is issued: we email you, and it opens from your review link, with no account needed. With an account, all your certificates are kept in My SciPub.3RecognitionApproved reviews also count towards a journal’s certificate of appreciation, for a record of reviews over the years, and its yearly Outstanding reviewer award.4VouchersReviewers may receive a voucher towards a future charge, at the office’s discretion, based on the quality and timeliness of their reviews. The code is entered on the payment page.