Reviewer Guidelines
A comprehensive guide to conducting high-quality, ethical, and constructive peer reviews for ExpertReviewersHub partner journals.
Role of the Reviewer
Peer reviewers play a critical role in ensuring the integrity, accuracy, and quality of published research. As a reviewer for ExpertReviewersHub partner journals, you serve as an independent expert who evaluates manuscripts for scientific merit, methodological rigour, and clarity of presentation.
Your primary responsibilities are to:
- Provide an objective, balanced, and constructive assessment of the manuscript.
- Identify methodological flaws, factual errors, or gaps in the analysis.
- Suggest improvements that would strengthen the work.
- Advise the editor on the suitability of the manuscript for publication.
Before You Begin
Before accepting an invitation to review, please consider the following:
- Expertise: Ensure the topic falls within your area of competence. If the manuscript is outside your expertise, decline the invitation promptly.
- Conflicts of Interest: Decline if you have a personal, financial, or professional relationship with the authors that could bias your judgement.
- Availability: Confirm you can complete the review within the stated deadline (typically 14 days from acceptance).
- Confidentiality: By accepting, you agree to treat the manuscript and all related communications as strictly confidential.
If you are unable to review, please suggest alternative reviewers where possible. This helps editors maintain turnaround times.
Structuring Your Review
A well-structured review is most helpful for both the editor and the author. We recommend organising your feedback into the following sections:
1. Summary
Provide a brief summary (2–4 sentences) of the manuscript's key findings, methodology, and conclusions. This demonstrates that you have engaged with the work and provides context for the editor.
2. Major Comments
Identify significant issues that affect the validity of the conclusions or the reliability of the methods. These may include:
- Flawed experimental design or statistical analysis
- Unsupported claims or over-interpretation of data
- Missing controls or insufficient sample sizes
- Lack of novelty or incremental contribution
3. Minor Comments
Address smaller issues such as:
- Grammar, spelling, or formatting errors
- Incomplete references
- Unclear figures or tables
- Suggestions for improving readability
4. Confidential Comments to the Editor
Use this section for remarks that should not be shared with the author — such as concerns about ethical conduct, data fabrication, or suspected plagiarism.
Be specific. Reference page numbers, line numbers, or figure/table numbers wherever possible so authors can address your comments efficiently.
Rating Criteria
During your review you will be asked to rate the manuscript on three dimensions. Use the following scale:
| Criterion | Description |
|---|---|
| Is the subject area appropriate and the topic worthy? | Evaluate the relevance of the research question, the importance of the topic to the journal's readership, and its potential contribution to the field. |
| Is the information presented new? | Assess whether the findings are novel and contribute new knowledge, or whether they are largely incremental or replicate existing work. |
| Are the conclusions supported by the data? | Determine whether the data, methods, and analysis adequately support the conclusions drawn. Look for logical consistency and methodological soundness. |
Rate each criterion from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
Recommendations
Based on your evaluation, select one of the following editorial recommendations:
| Recommendation | When to Use |
|---|---|
| Accept | The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or very minor changes (e.g. typographic corrections only). |
| Minor Revision | The manuscript is sound but requires small improvements (clarifications, additional references, minor data issues) that do not fundamentally alter the conclusions. |
| Major Revision | Significant issues must be addressed — additional experiments, reanalysis of data, or substantial rewriting — before the manuscript can be reconsidered. |
| Reject | The manuscript has fundamental flaws, lacks novelty, or falls outside the scope of the journal and is unlikely to be made suitable through revision. |
Ethical Standards
All reviewers are expected to adhere to the highest standards of research ethics:
- Objectivity: Evaluate the manuscript on its scientific merit alone, regardless of the authors' nationality, gender, institution, or personal beliefs.
- Integrity: Do not use information or ideas from the manuscript for your own benefit before it is published.
- Constructive Tone: Frame criticism in a constructive manner. Avoid disparaging or personal remarks.
- Plagiarism & Misconduct: If you suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical violations, report this to the editor immediately via the confidential comments section.
- AI Assistance: If you use AI-assisted tools to draft your review, you must disclose this and verify all outputs for accuracy. You remain personally responsible for the content of your review.
Confidentiality
The peer review process is confidential. This means:
- You must not share the manuscript, your review, or any information about the submission with anyone outside the editorial process.
- You must not discuss the review with the authors before or after the editorial decision, unless explicitly agreed by all parties.
- You must not retain copies of the manuscript after completing your review, unless required for the revision process.
If you would like to involve a colleague or junior researcher in the review, you must seek prior approval from the handling editor.
Timeline & Deadlines
Timely reviews are essential for authors and the integrity of the publication process.
- Response to Invitation: Please respond within 3 business days of receiving the invitation.
- Review Submission: Once accepted, you typically have 14 days to submit your review.
- Extensions: If you need additional time, contact the editor before the deadline. We understand that circumstances change.
Failing to respond to invitations or consistently missing deadlines may affect future review invitations.
Additional Resources
We recommend the following resources for further reading on best practices in peer review:
- COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
- Elsevier Reviewer Guidelines
- Nature — Guide for Referees
- Springer — How to Peer Review
If you have questions about your review or the review process, please contact us at support@expertreviewershub.com.