REVIEW GUIDELINES

Peer reviewers have a critical role in the publishing system, ensuring papers are suitable for publication. From a position of expertise, reviewers guide and enable fellow researchers to get their work out into the world, in the best condition it can be.

How to peer review

To support our reviewers, we have put together some tips and lists of things to consider when getting ready to review, and in writing a fair and constructive review.

Before accepting the invitation

When you receive an invitation to review, it is important to consider the following points before accepting.

Is the manuscript within my expertise? Think about whether the manuscript is suitably within your area of expertise. If not, please decline the invite, and consider helping us by suggesting alternative relevant experts.

Do I have the time? We strive to keep our peer review process efficient and as such reviewers are requested to complete their reports within 15 days after they accept the invite. You should let the editorial office know if you aren't able to provide a review but may be able to participate at another time.

Respond to the invitation. We ask reviewers to respond to the review invitation as soon as they can. You are of course free to decline to review if you feel that you lack the time or expertise, and we always appreciate recommendations for alternative reviewers. If a reviewer realizes that 15 days will be insufficient to complete their review, or if there will be a delay to the deadline after the invitation has been accepted, they can contact the editorial office. We will be happy to assist.

Conflicts of Interest

If a peer reviewer has a conflict of interest in reviewing work from any author on the manuscript (e.g. previous co-authors) they should immediately notify the editorial office and remove themselves from the peer review process.

During peer review

Before a manuscript is sent for peer review, our research integrity team and the handling editor will already have carried out initial quality checks.

The aims of our reviewers should always be to:

focus on the quality of the science objectively

collaborate towards improvement and think constructively

help the author and editor understand what is needed with clear comments.

Below are our tips for ensuring a quality report is produced.

What to do

Respect the scope – Authors provide a 'contribution to the field' statement with their manuscript to explain the article's intended scope and relevance. Keep the focus on what the manuscript is aiming to do, even if your expertise extends in a related direction. You should avoid recommending authors vastly expand the scope of the manuscript (e.g. “you only dealt with x, you need to deal with y”), or taking them outside their manuscript's intended scope.

Focus on science Be objective – Frontiers discloses author names to reviewers for full transparency, however, reviewers are not asked to assess the author, only the manuscript. Also, it is not necessary to flag small copy-editing errors: our production team will ensure those are fixed during typesetting. Our processes ensure you should focus solely on the research itself.

Provide constructive feedback – Comments should seek to recommend reasonable improvements, in a polite and impersonal tone. Show professional courtesy by thinking about what you would want to receive on a paper of your own. And if it is good, say so – and also say why!

Consider field specifics – Are there elements of the research specific to the field you work in? If so, apply your expertise to give feedback on these. It will be helpful to all involved in the manuscript's review process.

What not to do

Don't be vague or too brief – Authors find precise and detailed feedback extremely helpful, and this tends to result in a timely and smoother review process. Whereas a brief report will often lead to additional questions from authors. Make sure recommendations and decisions are explained clearly. You should make good use of the detailed questionnaire provided in the collaborative review platform to provide a clear assessment.

Don't leave out key points in your initial report – The initial report should be thorough and provide all the necessary feedback upfront. While it is possible that further revisions to the paper will bring up new questions, be sure to include your key points in your initial report. Ensure you conclude your report with a clear recommendation for the handling editor. You are the expert and your guidance is highly valued.

Don't drop out of the peer review – To ensure an efficient process for all involved, please try to submit your responses on time. If you need to request an extension or to withdraw from the review process you can do this directly in the review forum at any time, or contact the editorial office for support. Try to place yourself in the authors' shoes, as they anxiously await feedback on their submission.

Keep in touch

Encountering any issues during the review or have any concerns with the manuscript? Need assistance using our review platform? Need to request an extension to submit your review? For these or any other inquiries or updates, do not hesitate to contact your JEPM's office.

Reviewers' - Roles and responsibilities

Reviewers should support the editor in making editorial decisions, as well as, assist the author in improving the manuscript, throughout the editorial process.

The reviewer must notify the editor whenever feels unqualified to review properly the research reported in a manuscript or is not available to make the review within the stipulated time, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer for evaluation.

Information contained in submitted manuscripts received for review must be kept confidential, and not shown or discussed with others, except if authorized or recommended by the editor.

Reviews of submitted manuscripts should be conducted objectively. Referees should express their opinions and address points of improvement with supporting arguments.

Reviewers must ensure that authors have cited all relevant sources of data used in the research and identify statements that had been previously reported in other sources and are not accompanied by the respective citation. Any similarity or overlap between the manuscripts under consideration or with any other published paper of which reviewer has personal knowledge must be instantly communicated to the editor.

Reviewers must not use for personal advantage any privileged information or ideas contained in the submitted manuscript sent for peer review. Reviewers should not accept to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submitted work.