Reviewers’ Profile and Responsibilities

The role of the reviewer is vital and bears great responsibility in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. Every reviewer is expected to perform manuscript evaluation in a timely, transparent, and ethical manner, following the COPE guidelines.

Criteria for Reviewers:

• Hold no conflicts of interest with any of the authors.
• Should not come from the same institution as the authors.
• Should not have been published together with the authors in the last three years.
• Hold a PhD or MD (applicable for medical journals).
• Have relevant experience and a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper (Scopus, ORCID).
• Are they experienced scholars in the field of the submitted paper?
• Hold an official and recognized academic affiliation.

Reviewer Responsibilities:

• Have the necessary expertise to judge the scientific quality of the manuscript.
• Provide quality review reports and remain responsive throughout the peer review process.
• Maintain standards of professionalism and ethics.

Reviewers’ Benefits

• Reviewing is often an unseen and unrewarded task, despite being crucial. We strives to recognize the efforts of all its reviewers.

  • Reviewers may receive a discount voucher code for a reduction in the article processing charge (APC) of a future submission to any journal under ICR Publications.
  • Reviewer voucher codes can be used to pay for Author Services’ professional English editing.
  • Reviewers receive a personalized reviewer certificate.
  • Reviewers are eligible for the “Outstanding Reviewer Awards”.
  • Reviewers are included in the journal’s annual acknowledgement of reviewers.
  • Excellent reviewers may be promoted to Reviewer Board Members (subject to approval by the Editor-in-Chief).
  • Reviewers may create a profile on the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service (formerly Publons) by forwarding the thanks email to reviews@webofscience.com.

General Guidelines for Reviewers

Invitation to Review:

• Manuscripts are reviewed by at least two experts. Reviewers should evaluate the quality of the manuscript and provide a recommendation to the external editor on whether it should be accepted, requires revisions, or should be rejected.
• Accept or decline invitations promptly, suggest alternative reviewers if declining, and request deadline extensions if necessary.

Potential Conflicts of Interest:

• Declare any potential conflicts of interest and contact the journal Editorial Office if unsure. Possible conflicts include:
  • Working in the same institution as one of the authors.
  • Co-authoring, collaborating, or having any academic link with the authors within the past three years.
  • Having a close personal relationship, rivalry, or antipathy to any of the authors.
  • Potential financial gain or loss from the publication.
  • Any non-financial conflicts of interest.

Declaration of Confidentiality:

After the peer review and until publication, reviewers must keep the manuscript content confidential. Reviewers should not reveal their identity to the authors and should inform the Editorial Office if they would like a colleague to complete the review on their behalf.

A guide to effective peer reviewing

Peer review is an incredibly important process. Let us guide you through each stage and offer you a selection of resources, tips and tricks to make your reviewing experience as positive as it can be.

1. Review Time: Now that you have accepted the review deadline, it is your responsibility to provide the review within the agreed-upon time period. If you need more time, please inform the editorial office and provide your proposed date.
2. Managing your review: When you sit down to write your review, make sure you familiarize yourself with any journal-specific guidelines.
3. 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.
4. After your review: Once you have delivered your review, you might want to make sure that you receive credit for your work.

Review Reports

• Review reports must be prepared in English and should critically analyze the article. Comments should be detailed and constructive. Reviewers must not recommend excessive citation of their own or colleagues’ work.
• AI or AI-assisted tools should not be used to draft, edit, polish, or review submissions. Reviewers are responsible for the content of their reports.

• Summarize the article in a short paragraph. This shows the editor you have read and understood the research. 
• Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting, has a sufficient impact and adds to the knowledge base. 
• Ideally, when commenting, do so using short, clearly defined paragraphs and make it easy for the editor and author to see what section you’re referring to. 
• Give specific comments and suggestions—e.g., Does the title accurately reflect the content? Is the abstract complete and stand-alone? 
• Check the graphical abstracts and/or highlights. If any
• Keep your comments strictly factual and don’t speculate on the motives of the author(s). 
• Carefully review the methodology, statistical errors, results, conclusion/discussion, and references. 
• Consider feedback on the presentation of data in the article, the sustainability and reproducibility of any methodology, the analysis of any data, and whether the conclusions are supported by the data. 
• Raise your suspicions with the editor if you suspect plagiarism or research falsification or have other ethical concerns, providing as much detail as possible. Visit the Reviewer hub or consult the COPE guidelines opens in a new tab/window for more information.
• Be aware of potential bias in your review. Unconscious bias can lead us all to make questionable decisions that negatively impact the academic publishing process. 

Rating the Manuscript

• Reviewers should rate aspects such as novelty, scope, significance, quality, scientific soundness, interest to readers, and English level.

Double-Blinded Peer Review

Make sure that your review comments are presented in the appropriate format in order to protect the credibility of the double-blind peer review:

1. In Microsoft Word: Remove hidden data and personal information by inspecting your document.
2. With PDFs in Adobe Reader, remove all personal information within the document properties.

You also have the ability to attach files to your review. If you attach any files, please ensure that they are anonymous, maintaining the blind review process.

Please ensure you complete all required sections of your review report. These fields will be marked with a red “req” symbol. Try to avoid straight yes or no answers when completing the scorecard. In some cases, the journal may also require you to complete a further questionnaire, which will be sent to you when you accept the invitation to review a manuscript.

After you have completed the written fields on the Scorecard, you are required to make a recommendation to the Editor as to the next step for the journal. The Editor will take your overall recommendation into account.

Recommendations:

• Accept Submission
• Revisions Required
• Resubmit for Review
• Resubmit Elsewhere
• Decline Submission
• See Comments

For further guidance, please refer to the following documents:

• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
• Hames, I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2007.
• Golash-Boza, T. How to write a peer review for an academic journal: Six steps from start to finish.

For any questions or additional information, please contact the Editorial Office at publications@icrp.org.uk