Reviewer Guidelines

What do reviewers do?

Reviewers evaluate article submissions to journals and advise editors as to the articles' suitability for publication. This combines thorough technical review of the quality, completeness and accuracy of the research presented, with a broader perspective on the potential interest the results may or may not hold for the journal's readership, depending on the journal's criteria for publication.

Good reviewers collaborate with authors to improve their work. They provide feedback on the paper, suggest improvements, and make a recommendation to the editor about whether to accept, reject or request changes to the article. The ultimate decision always rests with the editor, but reviewers play a significant role in determining the outcome.

Reviewing is a time-intensive process, but it is worthwhile for the reviewer as well as for the community. Reviewers:

• enforce the rigorous standards of the scientific process by taking part in the peer-review system.

• uphold the integrity of the scientific record by identifying invalid research, and helping to maintain the quality of the academic literature.

• fulfil a sense of obligation to the community and their own area of research.

• establish relationships with reputable colleagues, and participate in the global social network of their field.

• build a reputation with editors and their affiliated journals, with the potential to serve as editors.

• can help prevent ethical breaches by identifying potential plagiarism, research misconduct, and other problems through their familiarity with the subject area.

• reciprocate professional courtesy, as authors and reviewers are often interchangeable roles – as reviewers, researchers return the same consideration they receive as authors.

Volunteer to review

Typically, reviewers are invited to conduct a review by a journal editor. Editors usually select researchers that are experts in the same subject area as the paper. However, if you think you would be a good referee for a specific journal you can contact the journal office directly. Please note that you should first provide your reviewer profile.

Alternatively, visit the journal homepage and click the “editorial team”, then contact any relevant editors by email to offer your reviewing services. Please be aware that the choice of whether or not to choose a particular referee for a paper is entirely at the discretion of the editor and ifspress plays no part in this decision.

Before you begin

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

• Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.

• Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.

• Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work — before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can (even if it is to decline) — a delay in your decision slows down the review process and means more waiting for the author. If you do decline the invitation, it would be helpful if you could provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

Managing your review

Confidential material

If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.

How to log in and access your review

Your review will be managed via a journal submission system located at your dashboard. Ifspress's journals use different submission systems so there is no one generic login link. To access the paper and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received which will bring you to the submission/reviewing system.

Article- and journal-specific instructions

When you sit down to write the review, make sure you familiarize yourself with any journal-specific guidelines (these will be noted in the journal’s guide for authors available on each journal’s homepage).

In any review, please keep the author (instead of the editor) in mind when preparing your replies as your comments will likely be included in the decision letter sent to the author. Also please make sure to reply to the questions in sufficient detail when you are submitting your report in Editorial Manager, to enable the author to most effectively improve the manuscript based on your comments.

If the journal in question does not require you to respond to a list of specific questions, you might find it useful to consider these questions and the below generic points when you are preparing your review report.

Research article

• Examine the importance of the research question addressed in the manuscript (e.g., are objectives and justification clearly stated?)

• Assess the originality (contribution, addition of knowledge to scientific literature or field) of the manuscript

• Clearly identify the strengths and weaknesses of the method described in the manuscript

• Make specific useful comments on the writing of the manuscript (e.g., writing, organization, figures, etc.)

• Offer specific comments on the author’s interpretation of the results and conclusions drawn from the results

• In case applicable, comment on the statistics (for example question if they are robust and fit-for-purpose and if the controls and sampling mechanisms are sufficient and well described)

Review Article

• Discuss the importance of the topic/scope of the review

• Assess the originality of the review

• Comment on the author's representation of the most relevant recent advances in the field; specifically, determine whether the references are relevant to the topic and cover both historical literature and more recent developments

• Offer comments on the writing, organization, tables and figures of the manuscript

• Comment on the author's interpretation of the results

In any case, your first task is to read the article. You might consider spot checking major issues by choosing which section to read first. Below we offer some tips about handling specific parts of the paper.

Methodology

If the manuscript you are reviewing is reporting an experiment, check the methods section first. The following cases are considered major flaws and should be flagged:

• Unsound methodology

• Discredited method

• Missing processes known to be influential on the area of reported research

• A conclusion drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript

For analytical papers examine the sampling report, which is mandated in time-dependent studies. For qualitative research make sure that a systematic data analysis is presented and sufficient descriptive elements with relevant quotes from interviews are listed in addition to the author’s narrative.

Research data and visualizations

Once you are satisfied that the methodology is sufficiently robust, examine any data in the form of figures, tables, or images. Authors may add research data, including data visualizations, to their submission to enable readers to interact and engage more closely with their research after publication. Please be aware that links to data might therefore be present in the submission files. These items should also receive your attention during the peer review process.

Critical issues in research data, which are considered to be major flaws can be related to insufficient data points, statistically non-significant variations and unclear data tables.

Ethical considerations

Experiments including patient or animal data should properly be documented. Most journals require ethical approval by the author’s host organization.

Overview

If you don’t spot any major flaws, take a break from the manuscript, giving you time to think. Consider the article from your own perspective. When you sit down to write the review, again make sure you familiarize yourself with any journal-specific guidelines (these will be noted in the journal’s guide for authors).

Structuring your review

Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. It will also aid the author and allow them to improve their manuscript. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any ad hominem remarks or personal details including your name

Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgement 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 and evidence.

Your recommendation

When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor will likely use for classifying the article:

• Reject (explain your reasoning in your report)

• Accept without revision

• Revise — either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether you would be happy to review the revised article); if you are recommending a revision, you must furnish the author with a clear, sound explanation of why this is necessary

Bear in mind that there will be the opportunity to direct separate comments to both the editor and author. Once you are ready to submit your report, follow the instructions in the email

The final decision

The editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. The editor will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision. The submission system provides reviewers with a notification of the final decision, if the journal has opted in to this functionality.

After your review

Do not forget that, even after finalizing your review, you must treat the article and any linked files or data as confidential documents. This means you must not share them or information about the review with anyone without prior authorization from the editor.

Finally, we take the opportunity to thank you sincerely on behalf of the journal, editors and author(s) for the time you have taken to give your valuable input to the article.