How to deport a review

Getting started picto

one- Before yous brainstorm

Before you take or reject an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

  • Does the article friction match your surface area of expertise? But have if y'all feel you can provide a high-quality review.
  • Do you have a potential conflict of involvement? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
  • Do you accept time? Reviewing can be a lot of piece of work – before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.
  • Do you need to find out more almost reviewing and the peer review procedure? If so, cheque out the complimentary tutorials on the Elsevier Researcher Academy, especially the Certified Peer Reviewer course.

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can (fifty-fifty if it is to pass up) – a delay in your conclusion slows downward the review process and means more waiting for the author. If you do decline the invitation, it would exist helpful if you could provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

Managing your review picto

2- Managing your review

Confidential fabric

If you lot accept, you must treat the materials y'all receive as confidential documents. This ways you can't share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, y'all also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.

How to log in and access your review

Your review will be managed via an Elsevier submission system such equally Editorial Manager. Elsevier journals utilize different submission systems then there is no one generic login link.

To admission the paper and evangelize your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received which volition bring you to the submission/reviewing system.

Article- and periodical-specific instructions

When you sit downwards to write the review, make certain you familiarize yourself with any journal-specific guidelines (these will be noted in the journal's guide for authors available on each journal's homepage).

Some journals require reviewers to answer specific questions most the manuscript instead of preparing a full review report. If the periodical in question does not require y'all to respond to a listing of specific questions, yous might detect it helpful to consider the beneath points before preparing your comments to the editor/author(s):

Total length research commodity

  • Examine the importance of the inquiry question addressed in the manuscript (e.g., are objectives and justification clearly stated?).
  • Assess the originality (contribution, addition of knowledge to scientific literature or field) of the manuscript.
  • Clearly identify the strengths and weaknesses of the method described in the manuscript.
  • Make specific useful comments on the writing of the manuscript (e.one thousand., writing, organization, figures, etc.).
  • Offer specific comments on the author's interpretation of the results and conclusions drawn from the results.
  • In case applicable, comment on the statistics (for example question if they are robust and fit-for-purpose and if the controls and sampling mechanisms are sufficient and well described).

Review commodity

  • Discuss the importance of the topic/telescopic of the review.
  • Appraise the originality of the review.
  • Comment on the author's representation of the nearly relevant contempo advances in the field. Specifically, determine whether the references are relevant to the topic and cover both historical literature and more than recent developments.
  • Offer comments on the writing, arrangement, tables, and figures of the manuscript.
  • Comment on the author's estimation of the results.

In any case, your first task is to read the article. You might consider spot checking major issues by choosing which department to read commencement. Beneath we offer some tips nigh handling specific parts of the paper.

Methodology

If the manuscript you are reviewing is reporting an experiment, check the methods section kickoff. The following cases are considered major flaws and should be flagged:

  • Unsound methodology
  • Discredited method
  • Missing processes known to exist influential on the area of reported research
  • A decision drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript

For analytical papers examine the sampling written report, which is mandated in fourth dimension-dependent studies. For qualitative research make sure that a systematic data analysis is presented and sufficient descriptive elements with relevant quotes from interviews are listed in addition to the author'due south narrative.

Assess manuscripts for inclusion of sex-disaggregated information and gender analysis. It could well be that the study was not designed to analyze sex activity and/or gender. Nevertheless, nosotros recommend referees to consider if sexual practice and gender are relevant to the topic of the written report, and whether the study follows relevant guidelines, wherever applicable.

Equally a full general principle, the SAGER guidelines recommend conscientious employ of the words "sex" and "gender" in order to avoid confusing both terms. The use of common definitions will amend the ability to conduct meta-analyses of published and archived information. The term "sex" should be used as a classification of male or female based on biological stardom to the extent that this is possible to confirm. Per Heidari et al.: "Gender refers to the socially synthetic roles, behaviours and identities of female, male person and gender-diverse people . It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they behave and interact and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender is usually incorrectly conceptualized equally a binary (female/ male person) cistron. In reality, there is a spectrum of gender identities and expressions defining how individuals identify themselves and express their gender."

Please check if authors have underlined in the methods department whether the sex of participants was defined based on cocky-report or assigned following external or internal exam of body characteristics, or through genetic testing or other means. In studies of animals, the term "sex activity" should be used. In cell biological, molecular biological or biochemical experiments, the origin and sex chromosome constitutions of cells or tissue cultures should be stated. If unknown, the reasons should be stated. In other disciplines, such as the testing of devices or technology, authors should explain whether it will be applied or used past all genders and if it has been tested with a user's gender in mind. Please check whether the authors have done due diligence and reported whatsoever previous studies in the introductions that reveal or refute potential sex or gender differences, and the rationale why they take or have not examined these aspects in their report.

If the study included only one sex/gender, ensure this has been justified. If the report included more than i sexual practice/gender, ensure data are reported for all the options that were recorded and that data disaggregated by sex activity/gender are reported in full, in the main text or in the appendix or supplementary materials. It is of import to appraise whether the methodology is appropriate to capture possible sex and gender aspects. Equally a peer reviewer you may request sub-group assay if deemed necessary and check if all data are provided disaggregated by sex, as a minimum.

Finally, please also pay attention to whether authors have conspicuously justified in the give-and-take section whatsoever limitation of their study due to lack of whatsoever sexual activity- and gender-based analysis and/or the implications on the generalizability and interpretation of their findings in light of that. It could be that the study was not designed to analyze sex activity and/or gender, all the same, it is of import to consider if sex and gender are relevant to the topic of the study, and whether the written report follows relevant guidelines, wherever applicative.

Research information and visualizations

Once you are satisfied that the methodology is sufficiently robust, examine any data in the form of figures, tables, or images. Authors may add together enquiry data, including data visualizations,to their submission to enable readers to collaborate and engage more closely with their research after publication. Delight be enlightened that links to information might therefore be present in the submission files. These items should besides receive your attention during the peer review process. Manuscripts may too contain database identifiers or accession numbers (e.thousand. genes) in relation to our database linking program.

Critical issues in inquiry data, which are considered to exist major flaws tin can be related to insufficient data points, statistically non-significant variations and unclear data tables.

NB for certain types of visualization, preview tools are available, assuasive yous to inspect how files will display on ScienceDirect if the manuscript is accepted. For other data visualizations, there may be other ways of inspecting the files.

Upstanding considerations

Experiments including patient or animate being data should properly be documented. Most journals crave ethical approval past the author'southward host organisation. Delight check journal-specific guidelines for such cases (available from the periodical'south homepage, attainable via the journal catalogue.

Overview

If you don't spot any major flaws, take a suspension from the manuscript, giving you lot time to think. Consider the commodity from your ain perspective. When y'all sit down to write the review, again brand sure you familiarize yourself with any journal-specific guidelines (these volition be noted in the journal's guide for authors).

Structuring your review picto

three. Structuring your review

Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the commodity. It will also aid the author and permit them to improve their manuscript. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the commodity is essential. Your comments should be courteous and effective, and should not include any ad hominem remarks or personal details including your proper name (unless the journal yous are invited to review for employs open up peer review).

Providing insight into whatever deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgement then that both editors and authors are able to fully sympathise the reasoning behind your comments. You lot should betoken whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data and evidence.

Checklist

The journal for which you are reviewing might accept a specific format (e.g., questionnaire) or other instructions for how to structure your feedback. Below are some full general tips on what to include/consider if no other guidelines utilise. View the checklist hither.

Here is an example of a published peer review written report.

Your recommendation

When yous brand a recommendation, it is worth because the categories the editor will probable use for classifying the article:

  • Reject (explain your reasoning in your report)
  • Accept without revision
  • Revise – either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether you lot would exist happy to review the revised article). If you lot are recommending a revision, you lot must furnish the author with a clear, sound explanation of why this is necessary.

Bear in mind that there will exist the opportunity to direct split comments to both the editor and writer. Once you are ready to submit your report, follow the instructions in the email or visit our support middle if you meet whatever difficulties.

Access the back up center for further help

The terminal decision

The editor ultimately decides whether to take or reject the article. Elsevier plays no part in this decision. The editor volition weigh all views and may telephone call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision. The submission organisation provides reviewers with a notification of the last determination, if the journal has opted in to this functionality.

After your review picto

4. After your review

Once you take delivered your review, you might want to make use of Elsevier's Reviewer Hub to ensure that you receive credit for your work. The platform provides a individual profile folio, certificates, editor recognition also as discounts for Elsevier services.

Do non forget that, fifty-fifty later finalizing your review, you must treat the commodity and any linked files or data as confidential documents. This means you must non share them or information virtually the review with anyone without prior potency from the editor.

Finally, nosotros take the opportunity to cheers sincerely on behalf of the journal, editors and author(s) for the time you accept taken to requite your valuable input to the article.

Reviewers tools & resources picto