This document provides guidance on peer reviewing for academic journals. It discusses the definition and purpose of peer review, the peer review process, and the roles and responsibilities of reviewers. Reviewers are asked to check that manuscripts meet necessary standards before publication, provide objective and constructive feedback, and make a clear recommendation to editors on whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected. Maintaining confidentiality and submitting timely reviews is important for peer review to work effectively.

1. 22.07.2015
1
Reviewing for journals
Doctoral Summer School 2015
Dr. Andreas Zins, MODUL University Vienna
Editor-in-Chief, IJCTHR
[with excerpts from webinars of Elsevier Publishing Campus]
Peer review - definition
• a process by which a scholarly work (such as a
paper or a research proposal) is checked by a
group of experts in the same field to make sure
it meets the necessary standards before it is
published or accepted
(Merriam-Webster)
2

2. 22.07.2015
2
Before you accept or decline
• Motivation
• Your area of expertise?
• Potential conflict of interest?
• Enough time?
• Familiarize yourself with the peer review
process of the journal
3
Peer Review:
why would you volunteer to review
• „Give“
• Academic duty
• „Take“
•General interest in the area
•Keep up-to-dat with the latest developments
•Helps with own research and/or stimulate
new ideas
•Builds association with prestigious journals
and editors
•Aware of new research before others are
•Career development
4

3. 22.07.2015
3
Why Peer review?
5
Reasons for Declining to Review
6

4. 22.07.2015
4
What do researchers want as authors
and as readers?
7
Certification Function
8

5. 22.07.2015
5
Purpose of Peer Review: Gaps
9
Types of Peer Review
10

6. 22.07.2015
6
Identification of Peer Reviewers
 Reviewer database of the journal
 Editorial board members of the journal
 Other databases
 Scopus, PubMed, …
 Specific tools provided by the journal publisher
 E.g. Elsevier‘s Find Reviewers Tool
 Suitable reviewers proposed by the authors
 But not from their own inner circle
11
Peer Review is based on trust
 The peer review process which in essence determines
what becomes the public record of science is based on
trust
 Trust between authors and editors
 Trust between editors and reviewers
12

7. 22.07.2015
7
Privileged Document
 The manuscript you review is a confidential document.
 The content is and remains the exclusive property of the
authors.
 You should not disclose it to others
 Who may use the information in their own research
 If you have printed the manuscript
 You must keep it confidential until the review process has
been completed
 After the final decision by the editor you must destroy it.
 If you have shared responsibility for the review with a
colleague you must provide that person‘s name and
affiliation to the editor.
13
Take-home Messages
Find out the value of the manuscript!
14

8. 22.07.2015
8
The Peer Review Process - Overview
15
The Peer Review Process (I)
16
 Regular articles are initially reviewed by at least two
reviewers
 When invited, the reviewer receives the Abstract of the
manuscript
 The editor generally requests that the article be reviewed
within 2 – 4 weeks
 Articles are revised until the two reviewers agree on either
acceptance or rejection, or until the editor decides that the
reviewer comments have been addressed satisfactorily
 The reviewer reports help the Editors to reach a decision
on a submitted paper
 The reviewer is the one who recommends; the editor decides!

9. 22.07.2015
9
The Peer Review Process (II)
17
 If a report has not been received after 4 weeks, the
Editorial office contacts the reviewer
 If there is a notable disagreement between the reports of
the reviewers, a 3rd (or even 4th) reviewer may be
consulted
 The anonymity of the reviewers is strictly maintained
 Unless a reviewer asks to have his/her identity made known
to the authors
The Peer Review Process (III)
18
 Reviewers must not communicate directly with authors
 All manuscripts and supplementary material must be
treated confidentially by editors and reviewers
 The aim is to have a „first decision“ to the authors within 4 –
6 weeks after submission of the manuscript
 Meeting these schedule objectives requires a significant
effort on the part of the Editorial staff, Editor and Reviewers
 If reviewers treat authors as they themselves would like to
be treated as authors, then these objectives can be met.

10. 22.07.2015
10
Issues reviewers look into:
19
What reviewers are NOT asked to do
20
 Reviewers are NOT asked to
 Act as copy editors of the manuscript
 Detect plagiarism, fraud and other ethics issues
 These remain the authors‘ responsibilities
 Deficiencies can result in manuscript rejection
 Or worse

11. 22.07.2015
11
General impression and abstract
 Look at the manuscript as a whole
 General comprehension of the manuscript
 Language/style/grammar
 Structure
 Level of enthusiasm
 Is the Abstract included?
 Is it a real summary of the paper?
 Does it include the key results?
 Does it contain unnecessary information?
 Journals set a limit for the number of words, is the abstract
too long?
21
Introduction
 Is it effective, clear, and well organized?
 Does it really introduce and put into perspective what
follows?
 Suggest changes in organization and point authors to
approprite citations if necessary
 Be as specific as possible when giving feedback
22

12. 22.07.2015
12
Assessing the methodology
 Can a colleague reproduce the results?
 Is the description of new methodology complete and
accurate?
 Did the authors include proper references to previsouly
published methodology?
 Is the sample size large enough and was it selected in an
appropriate way?
 Was the data collected in accordance with accepted
practice?
 Could or should the authors have inlcuded supplementary
material?
23
Results and discussion (I)
 Suggsst improvements in the way data is shown
 Comment on general logic and on justification of
interpretations and conclusions
 Comment on the number of figures, tabes, and schemes
 Write concisely and precisely which changes you
recommend
24

13. 22.07.2015
13
Results and discussion (II)
 List suggested style/grammar changes and other small
changes separately
 Suggest additional experiments or analyses
 Make clear the need for changes/updates
 Ask yourself whether the manuscript is worth being
published
25
Assessing the conclusions
 Comment on importance, validity, and generality of
conclusions
 Request toning down of unjustified claims and
generalizations
 Request removal of redundancies and summaries
 The Abstract, not the Conclusion, summarizes the study
26

14. 22.07.2015
14
References, tables, and figures
 Check accuracy, number, and appropriateness of citations
 Comment on tables and figures, and their quality and
readability
 Comment on any footnotes
 Assess completeness of legends, headers, and axis labels
 Comment on need for color in figures
 Check presentation consistency
27
References: tools for reviewers
 Free access to ScienceDirect (all content published by
Elsevier)
 Free access to Scopus (the world‘s largest abstract and
citation database
 Reference-linking in PDF of the manuscript
28

15. 22.07.2015
15
Reviewer report – For the authors
 General impression
 Before commenting on parts of the manuscript, the reviewer
is asked to add a short summary and general impression of
the article
 Ist imorance, language/style/grammar, and general level of
enthusiasm
 Major comments
 Important issue that, in the opinion of the reviewer, must be
addressed by the authors before the manuscript is suitable
for publication
 Minor comments
 Anything else worth mentioning
29
Reviewer report – For the editor
 Comment on the novelty and significance
 Recommend whether the manuscript is suitable for
publication or not, usually
 Accept
 minor revision
 Major revision
 Reject
 Must be consistent with comments for authors
 These comments will not be disclosed to the author(s)!
30

16. 22.07.2015
16
Reviewer checklist – For the editor
31
Outcomes
32

17. 22.07.2015
17
Editor’s view: What makes a good
reviewer?
 Provides an objective, thorough, and comprehensive
report
 Provides well-founded comments for authors
 Gives constructive criticism
 Provides a clear recommendation to the Editor
 Submits the report on time
33
Role and tasks of reviewer
 The peer review process is based on trust
 The scientific publishing enterprise depends largely on the
quality and integrity of the reviewers
 Reviewers should write reports in a collegial and
constructive manner
 Reviewers should treat all manuscripts in the same
manner they would like their own manuscript to be treated
34