Peer Review Guidelines

 

1. Peer Review Process

 

With the help and inputs from experts in the field, scholar peer review validates and improves academic content before publication. In addition, it opens up a world of collaboration among researchers on an idea, concept, or activity. Below is a brief introduction of peer review process.

 

3 major types of peer review:

 

  1. Single blind: Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers
  2. Double blind: Double blind peer review ensures that the authors and reviewers are unknown to each other throughout the review process
  3. Fully open: the author and reviewer identities are known, often even to readers.

 

Challenges often appearing during peer review process:

 

 

Benefits you can gain from participating in peer review:

 

 

E&E Editorial team will:

 

 

2. Ethics in Peer Review

 

As a reviewer, you asked to evaluate manuscripts with expertise. The goal is to assist authors in creating the best possible publication. The review process benefits the authors, other researchers and the reviewers. Reviewer should perform the role without being biased.

 

A conflict of interest involves a situation in which a person or group can benefit from the actions or decisions they make in their professional role.

 

In peer review, a conflict of interest occurs when you have:

 

 

In such cases, the conflict of interest could interfere with your ability to remain objective while evaluating the manuscript.

 

Conflicts of interest could make a reasonable person suspect that the connection has interfered with your judgment.

 

Type of conflict of interest:

 

The following list includes several scenarios in which a conflict may arise. Ultimately, editors request that you provide an unbiased report about the manuscript you received.

 

 

What is NOT a conflict of interest?

 

You may have a relationship with the authors; however, this doesn’t automatically mean that you have a conflict of interest that would exclude you from reviewing their manuscript.

 

 

 

 

 

What if I am still not sure?

 

Whenever you find yourself in doubt, always discuss your potential conflict with the editor by sending an email to the editor’s office. The editor may decide to:

 

 

It is always better to let the editor know of any potential biases you may have so that the editor is able to put your comments into context.

 

Overview on biases:

 

We may have conscious or unconscious biases when reviewing a manuscript.

 

 

Potential Biases:

 

 

Combating Bias

 

Ask yourself if you would make the same critical comment on the manuscript if different authors had written it. An unbiased reviewer treats all authors equally, evaluating only science.

 

Always be specific and avoid vague criticisms

 

One way that bias can present itself in peer review is through negative, vague critiques by the reviewer, such as “this paper was poorly written” or “many of the experiments were missing controls”.

 

These statements are difficult for the authors to address. If you think that the manuscript was poorly written and you do not feel that bias is playing any role in that impression, then you should be able to cite specific examples of the poor writing throughout the whole manuscript.

 

Similarly, if you believe that the experiments were poorly executed, then you should be able to describe the specific issues.

 

Not only will this rigor help you combat any unconscious biases that you may have, but it will also help the authors improve their manuscript.

 

Confidential Nature of Peer review

 

In the field of chemistry (and many other related disciplines), the peer review process is considered confidential in nature. Confidentiality assures authors that reviewers are not taking their ideas or data while working through the publication process.

 

As a reviewer, you have access to documents that very few people in the world have seen.

 

It is a privilege to be one of the first people to see a major development in your field.

 

This privilege comes with responsibilities – primarily, keeping that information confidential until it can be published.

 

What should be kept confidential?

 

Confidentiality applies to all components of the manuscript under review: the text; figures; supporting information; communication with the Editors; and even the report you submit to the journal.

 

When should it be kept confidential?

 

Confidentiality does not begin once you read the manuscript, but rather with the invitation to review. You should not share the title, abstract, or even the fact that the authors are attempting to publish manuscript with any of your colleagues.

 

How to keep it confidential?

 

If you are unable to complete the review in specified time frame and plan to decline the invitation, you may be asked to provide the names of other researchers who might also serve as reviewer for the manuscript under consideration. This helps the Editor identify additional experts and maintain the speed of the peer review process. If you choose to recommend reviewers, you should share names and contact information so the Editor can send an invitation. You should not contact these researchers yourself regarding the manuscript to inquire about their interest, as violates the confidentiality clause above.

 

Confidentiality within the lab    

                                                       

The authors’ work should not be communicated within your group either.

 

Editors understand that reviewing a manuscript can be an educational opportunity for a mentor.

 

This is an acceptable practice; however, the journal editors should be notified of all people who will be consulted during the process.

 

Review Process for Trainees

 

Given below is the review process where a trainee participates.

 

 

Confidentiality outside the lab

 

You should not share your identity as a reviewer of information about the manuscript with any colleagues.

 

If you do not have the expertise to review all aspects of the work, you should not discuss it with a colleague.

 

3. Preparing for Review

 

When it comes to publication, journals vary widely in their scope, mission and requirements. Therefore, it’s critical to understand specific journal’s requirements before starting the review process. Your thoughtful review will enable editors to arrive at an informed decision. Before reviewing, check the journal’s expectations and whether there is any specific feedback you need to provide.

 

When you receive an invitation to review a manuscript, it is expected that you will fully understand the scope and goals of the journal. The aims of the journal are important factors when you ultimately make suggestions for revisions of the authors work and make publication recommendation to the editor.

 

Review Invitation

 

The invitation to review contains information that will help you understand the journal you are reviewing – it is the first place you should look for guidance.

 

Common manuscripts types that you may likely to review:

 

 

Review Timeline

 

The reviewer invitation indicates the timeframe in which the editor hopes to receive the review, and this timeframe should not be overlooked.

 

Deciding on the review invitation

 

Once you understand both the aims of the journal and the type of manuscript you are being asked to evaluate, you will be able to decide whether you should accept or decline the invitation. The best way to gain insight into the editor’s expectations is by reading the review form that you will be asked to complete before you submit your review.

 

Understanding the Editor’s expectations

 

The best way to gain insight into the Editor’s expectations is by reading the review form that you will be asked to complete before you submit your review.

 

Familiarizing yourself with the author

 

Before reviewing a manuscript, it is helpful to familiarize yourself with the authors’ previously published articles and those by other related researchers. An overall awareness of the objectives and challenges facing the field are invaluable resources as you engage in your evaluation.

 

Approaching the context

 

If the article you are reviewing is on the same topic as your research and uses the same experimental approaches, you are likely fully aware of the current state of the literature. If you feel like you need more background, consider reading recent reviews referenced by the authors.

 

Reading the manuscript

 

The next step to prepare for reviewing a manuscript is simply to read the manuscript from beginning to end, with no interruptions, before you start critiquing it.

 

4. Assessing Significance and Technical Quality

 

Evaluating the significance of a manuscript involves fewer opportunities for citing specific examples of shortcomings from the manuscript, but it is still a critical part of your role as a reviewer.

 

Areas of Significance

 

 

 

 

Novel Contribution

 

Ideally, the author makes their key contributions clear in the title and abstract of the manuscript. As a reviewer, you should be able to generate a short, bulleted list of the novel contributions that the work would make to the current literature. Any journal will require the work to make some new contribution to the literature.

 

If author failed to highlight contribution as well as they claim novel contribution but you believe already been shown in existing literature. If you find difficult to generate a list of novel contribution the new manuscript have to the current literature, be sure to mention it in your review.

 

Evaluating the Technical Quality

 

Reviewing a manuscript for technical quality requires evaluating all aspects of the work, including:

 

Reproducibility

 

Reproducibility is the ability to replicate a technique, synthetic procedure, or calculation based on a written experimental section and is crucial in science. Readers should be able to readily understand in detail what was done and how the data were analyzed.

 

The Author may reference methods in their previously published work. As a reviewer, you should check these references for clarity and comprehensiveness.

 

5. Assessing Presentation and Readiness for Publication

 

Manuscripts should be novel and impactful results that technically sound. Manuscript should be well presented. If they are poorly presented and not ready for publication, both the editor and authors should be informed.

 

It is more vital than ever for research to be reported in a clear and logical way. As a reviewer, you should evaluate the organization and presentation of a manuscript. The first thing to keep in mind is the manuscript’s readability.

 

Readability

 

Reviewer can expose weakness in logic and organization that go unnoticed by the authors become of their deep familiarity with their own research.

 

A manuscript that is well written and easy to understand has a higher likelihood of being accepted for publication and being widely read by the community. Your role as a reviewer is to identify areas where the authors fail to communicate their research effectively and to provide suggestions for improvement.

 

As a reviewer, your time is valuable. It’s important to focus on:

 

 

Avoid:

 

 

Checklist for readability

 

 

 

Graphics

 

Graphics and figures are meant to enhance the text and make the manuscript easier to understand. As a reviewer, it is critical that you include graphics and figures in your evaluation. If the graphics or figures do not contribute to the overall quality or understanding of a manuscript, note those concerns in your review.

 

The graphics should serve one of two purposes in the manuscript:

 

  1. To complement the text and aid the reader in understanding the material (models and schemes)
  2. To provide information that the reader requires to evaluate the claims that are made (primary data and graphs)

 

Are the images of acceptable quality?

 

Reason for graphics evaluation

 

 

Are the graphics properly labeled?

 

For the reader to interpret and easily understand the data, figures should contain labels in a clear, legible format. Labels should be:

 

 

Are the figures publication-ready?

 

Professional presentation in a manuscript matters, and this is particularly important for figures.

 

The rest of the manuscript will be edited and typeset by publisher, but the figures usually do not change.

 

Features of good presentation

 

Some features that can contribute to the poor presentation of figures include the following:

 

 

Is the table of contents graphic suitable and appropriate?

 

Do: the table of contents graphic should be simple and informative, and it should aim to visually describe the research.

 

Don’t: Comical images, logos, and representations of persons (alive or deceased), stamps, currency, or trademarked items are not allowable for publication.

 

Evaluating the support information

 

A thorough review should always include an evaluation of any supporting information that accompanies the manuscript.

 

Before starting the evaluation, review the journal guidelines, focusing on the sections pertaining to the supporting information.

 

Compare the manuscript to the supporting information

 

The supporting information includes the data and experiential details to support the conclusions in the manuscript.

 

Compare the manuscript to the supporting information to verify that all compounds, tables, and experiments are included and reported in the same order as manuscript.

 

Any discrepancies between the manuscript and supporting information should be noted in your review.

 

Review the experimental procedures

 

Confirm that relevant experimental details are provided for each compound or experiment mentioned in the supporting information, if these details have not already been included in the manuscript.

 

Ask yourself the following questions and note the responses appropriately in your review:

 

 

Confirm adequate data are provided

 

Determine if there are adequate data provided to support every experiment in the manuscript. Ask yourself following questions and note the responses appropriately in your review.

 

 

Computational papers

 

Consider the following for computational papers:

 

 

Evaluating the supporting information for a manuscript

 

Your review should always include a thorough review of the supporting information and include comments for the authors to improve their overall work.

 

 

How to handle ethical issues

 

Here are some suggestions to handle ethical issues.

 

Data or figure manipulation, falsification, or fabrication: if you feel that brightness and contrast setting are so extreme that they could obscure data, you should contact the Editor immediately and request that he or she solicit new images from the author.

 

Potential concurrent submission to multiple journals: should you receive multiple requests to review the same manuscript from different journals, you should inform both Editors immediately so they can each stop the editorial process and resolve the issue with the author.

 

Plagiarism or self-plagiarism: As a reviewer, it is not your responsibility to discover any possible plagiarism in the manuscript. However, should you discover the issue simply while reviewing the manuscript, you should alert the Editor.

 

Confidentiality and Ethical issue

 

Do not:

 

 

6. Writing Your Review

 

The process of writing the final evaluation often goes unrecognized as a critical part of peer review. As part of review process, you evaluate the manuscript. You compile your notes and observations or type on file. Then, you organize all your ideas to convey your recommendations to the editor and authors.

 

At the beginning of your review, establish yourself as an expert in the field, and then give your opinions and advice. Most journals rely on blinded peer review to protect the identities of reviewers, so your opening statement helps the authors understand your qualifications.

 

Scripting the summary

 

A robust summary will set the stage for the rest of your review. Here are some points you need to remember while writing the summary:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Critiquing the work

 

To present the strengths and weaknesses of the work, you need to do the following:

 

 

Major and minor points

 

The best way to organize your comments is to first separate them into 2 categories:

 

 

Separating the comments into two sections in your review will help the author and editor understand the importance of the various pieces of feedback you are providing.

 

How to organize comments?

 

In the major and minor points sections, add any broad thoughts and impressions, listing specific feedback in the order in which the issue occur in the manuscript. While presenting comments, do the following to save time:

 

 

Be specific

 

Substantiate your review with science and constructive criticism rather than simply sharing your opinion. Specifically point out all the figures, procedures, experiments, etc., to which your comment applies

 

How to provide specific comments?

 

Use line numbers while referring to specific sections in the text, if available. Use quotation/page numbers from the text if line numbers are unavailable, to avoid ambiguity around the text to which you are referring.

 

Professionalism

 

When composing your review, always present your evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript using logical arguments. Here are some points that you need to follow:

 

 

Proofreading

 

Once you write your critique, re-read it with these questions in mind.

 

 

Wrapping up

 

A clear, professional, and logically presented review citing specific examples will lend credibility to your comments and save large amounts of time in the revision process for everyone involved.

 

Reviewer Form

 

Once you have your thoughts on the manuscript organized and the critique prepared, it is time to complete the reviewer form. A reviewer from consists of many sections.

 

Specific Questions: Often, there are specific questions on the reviewer from that help the Editor Address particular areas of interest. While filling out the reviewer form, you need to answer each question with care and ensure your answers are consistent with the statement in your critique.

 

Publication Recommendation: Every reviewer form will ask you to make a recommendation to the Editor, who will then make the final decision on a manuscript.

 

Comments to the editor: you may have comments that you wish to communicate to the editor but do not wish to share with authors. A section of the reviewer form is available for this purpose. Comments that may be communicated to the editor in this manner include the following:

 

Comments to the author: to add your comments, copy and paste the critique into the comments to the author field on the reviewer form. The comments that you enter (or upload) are visible to both the authors and the editor. You do not need to add your critique to the comments to the editor box.

 

Moving forward

 

Once you have all the specific questions on the review form answered, your comments to the authors entered, your recommendation selected, and perhaps some comments to the editor conveyed, you are ready to submit your review.