For reviewers
Peer review is the core of what the journal does. This page explains what we ask of reviewers, how the process works and how to join the reviewer pool.
Why review for us
Reviewing keeps you current with work in your field before it is published, builds your standing with editors, and is a recognised professional contribution. Reviewers for the journal receive a certificate of review on request, are named in the annual reviewer acknowledgement, and can record each review in their ORCID profile. Reviewers who complete four or more reviews in a year are invited to apply for the editorial board.
What we ask
- Respond to an invitation within five working days — accept or decline, so the editor can move on.
- Return your report within three weeks. If you need longer, tell the editor at the start.
- Declare any conflict of interest before you begin.
- Keep the manuscript confidential. Do not share it, cite it, or upload any part of it to an AI tool.
- Review the work, not the authors. Be specific, constructive and courteous. Reports that are dismissive or unsupported are returned.
How to structure your report
- Summary
- Two or three sentences stating what the manuscript claims and whether, in your view, the evidence supports it.
- Major points
- Issues that must be resolved before publication: flaws in design, missing controls, statistical problems, unsupported conclusions, ethical gaps.
- Minor points
- Clarity, figures, references, terminology. Numbered by page or line.
- Recommendation
- Accept · Minor revision · Major revision · Reject, with one sentence justifying it.
- Confidential comments to the editor
- Anything you do not want passed to the authors, such as suspected misconduct or overlap with other work.
What to assess
Originality and significance
Does the work add something to the field? Is prior work fairly cited? For process and methods papers, is the improvement real and measured?
Methods
Could another group repeat the work? Are sample sizes, controls, instruments, software and statistics adequate and appropriate? Do reported guidelines (ICH, PRISMA, CONSORT) actually match what was done?
Results and interpretation
Do the data support the conclusions? Are limitations acknowledged? Are figures and tables accurate and necessary?
Ethics and integrity
Are ethics approvals, consent, trial registration, data availability and conflicts of interest stated? Any sign of image manipulation or text overlap?
Reviewer recognition
- Certificate of review issued by the editorial office on request
- Annual published acknowledgement of all reviewers
- Reviews recorded to ORCID via Web of Science Reviewer Recognition (when connected)
- Priority consideration for editorial board vacancies