The status of a reviewer is just as important to a researcher’s career as having high-quality published research articles. A reviewer is a person who assesses a particular piece of work or research output and assigns a rating to it. As a rule, they are experienced academics who are experts in a specific, narrow field of knowledge. Having work independently assessed by external reviewers is an indicator of a publication’s quality, but it takes time to establish this process. Below are some tips to help you in the early stages of your work as a reviewer.
Be diligent. Complete your work on time. Be honest. Be objective. Be polite!
Keep the journal informed: if, for any reason, you are unable to review an article, please let the editor know as soon as possible.
Review methods are constantly being refined, allowing journals to choose the one that best suits the nature of their work. The following types of review are distinguished:
Single-blind review – a traditional method in which authors do not know the reviewers.
Double-blind review – a method in which authors do not know the reviewers, and reviewers do not know the authors.
Open review – the author and reviewer know each other’s names, and the review process itself takes place online with open comments.
More transparent review – a method whereby interested readers can request access to the expert review conclusions and the authors’ responses. Based on this information, it is possible to assess the quality of the reviewer’s work and the facts on which the conclusion was based.
Collaborative review – this method involves several experts working on a single article.
Post-publication review – a method in which the review is published after the article has been published and does not preclude other types of expert evaluation.
It is important for reviewers to be aware of these models of expert evaluation, their unique advantages and disadvantages.
Ensure that the article for which a review is required falls within your area of expertise. The editor who has approached you may not be aware that you work in a specialised field, or may only have a superficial understanding of your work. Only agree to undertake the task if you are fully confident and competent.
Avoid any potential conflict of interest.
A conflict of interest does not necessarily mean that you are prohibited from reviewing an article; however, you must inform the editor of such a situation, and they will make the final decision. Examples of possible causes of conflicts of interest include: if you work in the same department or institution as one of the authors; if you have previously worked on material with the author; if you have a professional or financial connection to the article. This information must be stated in your response to the editor’s invitation to review the article.
Make sure you have enough time to complete the work.
Reviewing an article can take a considerable amount of time. The time spent on reviewing can vary significantly depending on the discipline and, of course, the type of article, but on average, a thorough review will take around 5 hours. Do you have enough time to carry out a thorough review within the required timeframe?
Each journal sets its own review deadlines, which the editor will be sure to inform you of. Please let us know whether you accept the invitation within 1–2 days. It is important to remember that reviewing is voluntary, and if you decline, there will be no consequences. The main rule is: if you know you will not be able to complete the review within the required timeframe, please decline.
ETHICS
Plagiarism
If you suspect that an article is a copy of another work, please notify the editor as soon as possible, providing a link to the original work.
Fabricated data
It is extremely difficult to identify fabrication; however, if you suspect that an article contains false results, please inform the editor.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown or discussed with others, except for persons authorised by the editor. Unpublished material contained in the submitted manuscript must not be used in the reviewer’s own research without the author’s express written consent. Confidential information or ideas obtained during the review process must not be disclosed or used for personal gain.
In some situations, it is permissible to seek the opinion of a colleague, but you must in any case inform the editorial team of this in advance. Most editors welcome additional comments, but anyone involved in the review process must maintain confidentiality.
Uniqueness
Is the article original and of interest for publication? Does the article meet the standards upheld by the journal? Is the research topic significant? To determine the uniqueness and suitability of the article for the journal, try to assess the standing of similar research using citation databases.
STRUCTURE
Structure and Format
Authors are required to follow the Guidelines for Authors provided by the journal. If the manuscript does not comply with the specified guidelines, please inform the editor. If the editorial team gives the go-ahead, you should mention this in your review. If the content is nevertheless of high quality, the editor may decide to overlook the formatting. Otherwise, the editor may ask the author to amend the formatting of the material prior to publication.
Title
Does the title accurately reflect the content of the article?
Abstract
Does the abstract accurately reflect the content of the article?
Introduction
As a rule, the introduction should summarise previous research by other authors on the stated topic.
Method
Does the author clearly explain how the data were collected? Are the research questions addressed in the article clearly stated? Is there sufficient information provided to replicate the study? Does the author use relatively new methods? If so, are they explained in detail? Is the sample representative? Have the equipment and materials been properly described? Does the article specify the format in which the data were stored? Has the author maintained a logical flow in the presentation of the material?
Results
In this section, the author should explain what findings or results they have achieved in their research. The presentation of the material should be clearly organised and follow a logical sequence. Your task here is to assess how thoroughly the analysis was conducted. Are the statistical data correct? If you lack sufficient experience in working with statistics, please consult the editor when submitting your review.
Conclusion / Discussion
Has the author indicated how the results relate to expectations and previous research? Does the publication support or refute previous theories?
Language
If the article is of poor quality due to grammatical errors, you should not correct them. Please inform the editor of this.
Preparing a report for the editor
Once you have completed your assessment of the article, you must prepare a report. Below are the key points to consider when carrying out this task.
Process
The editor is obliged to inform you of the format in which the article should be presented.
Accessibility of reviewers’ comments
The author will only see the comments you have left for them. In some cases, the editor may edit these comments.
Classify your recommendation
When providing a recommendation on an article, you should consider the categories most commonly used to classify it:
Reject (explain the reason in the report)
Accept without revisions
Revisions (major or minor)
Indicate the need for revisions
Clearly explain what needs to be revised and inform the editor whether you wish to continue reviewing the article after the author has made the revisions.
Acceptance / Rejection
The final decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript is made by the editor. Before making a decision, the editor analyses all reviews and may seek a third-party opinion or ask the author to revise the material.