21-day window
Standard deadline from invitation to submitted review
Double-blind
Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other
5-point scoring
Rate originality, methodology, clarity, significance, and overall
The Review Process
- 1
Invitation
You receive an email invitation with the manuscript title and abstract. Accept or decline within 5 days. If declining, please suggest alternative reviewers if possible.
- 2
Conflict check
Before starting, confirm you have no financial, personal, or professional conflict with the authors or their institution. Email the editor if uncertain.
- 3
Read the manuscript
Read the full text once for an overall impression, then again critically taking notes. Check figures, tables, and supplementary materials.
- 4
Score each criterion
Rate originality, methodology, clarity, significance, and overall on a 1–5 scale. Be consistent — a manuscript with a 4 overall should reflect 4s across most criteria.
- 5
Write your report
Structure your comments for authors as: (a) major concerns, numbered; (b) minor concerns, numbered; (c) optional suggestions. Be specific and constructive.
- 6
Confidential comments
Use the editor-only field for any sensitive concerns — suspected plagiarism, ethical issues, or conflicts of interest — that should not reach the authors.
- 7
Submit
Submit your review through the reviewer dashboard before your deadline. Late reviews delay publication for authors; contact the editor if you need an extension.
Evaluation Criteria
Does the work make a novel contribution? Is the question new, or does it apply existing methods in a genuinely new context?
Are the research design, data collection, and statistical analyses appropriate, clearly described, and reproducible?
Is the writing clear and logical? Are figures self-explanatory? Can the methods and results be understood without the authors' assistance?
Will the results matter to others in the field — and potentially beyond it? Does the discussion accurately reflect the scope of the findings?
Weighting all criteria, what is your overall assessment? This score should reflect your recommendation below.
Recommendation Options
The manuscript is suitable for publication with no further changes. Reserve this for exceptional submissions.
The science is sound but specific, bounded changes are needed. Authors should be able to address your comments within 21 days.
Significant additional work — new experiments, re-analysis, or substantial rewriting — is required before the paper can be accepted.
The manuscript has fundamental flaws in concept or execution that cannot be resolved by revision, or it is out of scope.
Do's and Don'ts
Do
- Focus your critique on the science, not the writing style
- Be specific — cite line numbers, figure panels, or equation numbers
- Suggest additional references only when they are directly relevant
- Acknowledge what the authors have done well
- Complete your review within the agreed deadline (default: 21 days)
- Disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editor before starting
✕Don't
- ✕Request experiments that are beyond the scope of the paper
- ✕Reject a paper solely because it contradicts your own published work
- ✕Share the manuscript with colleagues without editor approval
- ✕Identify yourself to the authors or sign your review
- ✕Make unsubstantiated claims — every criticism needs evidence
- ✕Ask authors to cite your own papers unless genuinely necessary
Become a reviewer
Join our panel of active reviewers and help shape the published scientific record.
Create Reviewer Account