Information For Reviewers

General Reviewer Instructions

Before you accept or decline to review a manuscript, consider the following:

  • Reviewers should report any breach of publishing ethics (data fabrication, authorship problems, plagiarism, duplicate submission, etc.);
  • Reviewers should disclose conflicts of interest (anything that might affect their review, or if they feel they are unable to be objective);
  • The review process is strictly confidential (the journal uses double-blind peer review, which means that both the reviewers and the authors of the paper are anonymous).

If you are reviewing a manuscript, it would be greatly appreciated if you could complete your review within 2 - 3 weeks after having received a manuscript.

If you are unable to complete your report in the agreed time-frame, please inform the editorial office as soon as possible so that extensions can be provided and the reviewing process is not delayed.

If you are unable to do a review, it would be very helpful if you could recommend an alternative expert.

In the event of conflicting Reviewer reports, the Editor will make the final decision.

Please consider the following aspects when reviewing a manuscript:

  • Is the paper original and of high quality?
  • Are all relevant citations or references given by the author?
  • Does the paper fit the aims and scope of the journal?
  • Is the submission written in English which is understandable to the target audience?
  • Are the methods, analysis, and conclusions high quality?
  • Are the specific study aims or hypothesis included?
  • Is the writing style clear and appropriate to the readership?
  • Does the paper adhere to the Instructions to Authors?
  • Are the title, abstract and keywords adequate?

Reviewers should do their best to clearly explain and argument their decision about the manuscript. In particular, if the decision is negative (rejection) the reviewer should clearly explain the arguments for such decision. For example, if the work is not original, the reviewer should provide a reference to the previous relevant work. If the reference list is inadequate, the reviewer should list the missing references. If a revision is requested, the reviewer should provide a list of required changes for authors to follow. When a revised manuscript is submitted the authors should clearly explain what actions/changes have been made regarding each of the reviewers' comments.