We log anonymous usage statistics. Please read the privacy information for details.
We are extremely grateful to the reviewers who devote their time and expertise to promote good science in our field.
As a reviewer, please be specific and provide detailed feedback for authors regarding your concerns, but also with suggestions. We feel that the dialogue between authors and reviewers is essential. Please try to return your comments within 3 weeks.
Reviewers' identities to authors or to other reviewers will not be released (blind review). Reviewers shall remain anonymous throughout the review process and thereafter. Authors will not get access to reviewers' identities.
The review process is treated as strictly confidential, and will not be discussed with anyone who is not directly involved in this process. In case it appears necessary to consult with colleagues, they will be identified to the editor.
We ask invited reviewers to:
- accept or decline any invitation, if possible, immediately;
- please let us know if you need more time to compose your report.
Please let us know if you have a conflict of interests.
Please rate the following aspects of the manuscript:
- Originality/Novelty: Is the question original and well defined? Do the results significantly contribute to current knowledge?
- Significance: Are the results and their interpretation significant? Are the conclusions justified and supported by the results?
- Quality of Presentation: Are data and analyses appropriately presented?
- Soundness: Is the designed appropriate and technically sound? Are methods, tools, and software described with sufficient details to allow another researcher to reproduce the results?
- Interest to the Readers: Is this manuscript interesting for the readership of this Journal?
- English Level: Is the English language appropriate and understandable?
- Please inform the editor if you become aware of scientific misconduct or fraud, plagiarism or any other unethical behavior related to the manuscript.
Some specific points:
- Your identity will always remain confidential.
- We kindly ask you to complete the review within a short time frame (usually 4 weeks). In case you need an extension, please contact the editor.
- It is usually expected that reviewers agree to review a revision of the same paper to enhance coherence and expedite the reviewing process.
- If possible, please submit your comments within the box provided rather than as a separate document. You may annotate the text itself if you have specific comments. It is not expected that reviewers correct the language.
- If you do not feel confident about some aspects of the review, for instance if the manuscript is outside your areas of interest and expertise, please let the editors know via the ‘comments to editors (confidential)’ box.
- Seperate BibTeX files (xxx.bib) may be uploaded by the authors. These files are technical files to facilitate production and cross-referencing. Reviewers do not need to open these files.
For further guidance you may inquire the following documents:
- COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics.
- 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.
Detailed information about the Open Journal System (OJS) and the review process in OJS are given in the online documentation.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR REVIEW !