Reviewer guide
If you are new to peer review or reviewing for the first time, the peer review process might appear challenging. However, it can be an immensely rewarding experience, providing an opportunity to contribute to the advancement of your field and refine your own research and writing skills. The resources below will guide you through the intricacies of peer review, offering insights into what it entails and assisting you in crafting valuable and constructive reviews.
Do not hesitate to contact us with any problems.
Before embarking on a review, consider the following:
- Timing:
- Notify the editor promptly if you anticipate any challenges in meeting the review deadline.
- Keep your availability updated in TUSED to avoid receiving review invitations during periods of unavailability.
- Suitability:
- Assess whether you have any conflicts of interest or reasons that might impede an impartial review.
- If uncertain, consult with the editor.
- Familiarize yourself with your ethical responsibilities as a reviewer.
- Confidentiality:
- Maintain strict confidentiality; refrain from sharing the content of the manuscript unless expressly permitted by the editor.
- If you suspect author misconduct, discuss it only with the editor.
- Co-reviewing:
- If you plan to collaborate on a review with a colleague or student, inform the editor.
- Refer to the Ethics in publishing page and COPE’s Ethical guidelines for additional guidance on co-reviewing.
Before commencing a review, you may find it helpful to refer to COPE's guide on what to consider when asked to peer review a manuscript. This resource can offer valuable insights and guidance on ethical considerations, best practices, and responsibilities associated with the peer review process.
Reviewer’s Recommendation
When making your recommendation, in addition to providing review comments, you'll typically choose one of recommendation types:
- Accept: No further revision is required. The manuscript is deemed publishable in its current form. Acceptance without any revisions is relatively uncommon; most articles usually require some level of revision.
- Minor Revision: The paper is generally sound but needs minor corrections and clarifications, such as the addition of citations or adjustments to arguments. Revisions should be minimal and clearly marked for the attention of previous reviewers. The paper may undergo re-review.
- Major Revision: The core of the article is sound, and it has the potential for acceptance but requires substantial changes. This may involve additional experiments, analysis, literature, theory, or improvements to arguments and conclusions. Authors must submit a point-by-point response to reviewers, and the paper will undergo re-review. If quality, novelty, and/or contribution issues cannot be adequately addressed through revision, rejection may be recommended. Editors reserve the right to reject the paper if revisions are deemed insufficient.
- Reject: The manuscript lacks the required quality, novelty, or significance for publication. Even when recommending rejection, reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive suggestions for improvement in the Comments to the Authors field.
- Resubmit Elsewhere: This recommendation suggests that while the manuscript may not be suitable for acceptance in its current form, the reviewer believes it has potential value and encourages the authors to submit it to another journal. This recommendation allows the authors to consider submitting their work to a different venue that might be a better fit for the content and scope of the manuscript.
