www.elsevier.com Open in urlscan Pro
104.16.57.61  Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

Skip to main content

We use cookies that are necessary to make our site work. We may also use
additional cookies to analyze, improve, and personalize our content and your
digital experience. For more information, see our Cookie Policy.

Accept all cookies
Cookie settings


Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to,
please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox, Microsoft Edge, Google
Chrome, or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please
send us your feedback.

Dismiss

We'd appreciate your feedback.Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window

 * Academic & GovernmentAcademic & Government
 * HealthHealth
 * IndustryIndustry
 * Elsevier ConnectInsights
 * AboutAbout
 * Customer supportSupport

Publish with us
Open Search
Location Selector
Show Menu
 1. Home
 2. Reviewer

 3. How to conduct a review


HOW TO CONDUCT A REVIEW

 1. Before you begin
 2. Managing your review
 3. Structuring your review
 4. After your review
 5. Tools & resources


1. BEFORE YOU BEGIN

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following
questions:

 * Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you
   can provide a high-quality review.

 * Do you have a potential conflict of interest opens in new tab/window?
   Disclose this to the editor when you respond.

 * Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work — before you commit, make
   sure you can meet the deadline.

 * Do you need to find out more about reviewing and the peer review process? If
   so, check out the free tutorials on the Elsevier Researcher Academy opens in
   new tab/window, especially the Certified Peer Reviewer course opens in new
   tab/window.



Respond to the invitation as soon as you can (even if it is to decline) — a
delay in your decision slows down the review process and means more waiting for
the author. If you do decline the invitation, it would be helpful if you could
provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

A guide to effective peer reviewing


2. MANAGING YOUR REVIEW


CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL

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



GENERATIVE AI

Reviewing a scientific paper implies responsibilities that can only be
attributed to humans. The critical thinking and assessment required for
peer-review are outside the scope of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies,
and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete or
biased conclusions. These considerations, together with the principle that
submitted manuscripts are to be treated as confidential documents, underpins our
Generative AI policies opens in new tab/window for reviewers and editors:

 * Reviewers or editors should not upload the manuscript or any part of it into
   a Generative AI tool, as there is no guarantee of where materials are being
   sent, saved, or viewed, or how they may be used in the future and this may
   violate the authors’ confidentiality, proprietary and/or data privacy
   rights. It may also violate the terms of use of the Generative AI tool.

 * This confidentiality requirement extends to the peer review report and any
   other communication about the manuscript, such as the notification or
   decision letters, as they may also contain confidential information about the
   manuscript and/or the authors. For this reason, they should not be uploaded
   into a Generative AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving
   language and readability.

 * Generative AI should not be used to assist in the review, evaluation or
   decision-making process of a manuscript.

Elsevier embraces new AI-driven technologies that support reviewers and editors
in the editorial process, such as those used during the screening process to
conduct completeness and plagiarism checks and identify suitable reviewers.
These identity-protected technologies conform to the RELX Responsible AI
Principles opens in new tab/window. We continue to develop and adopt in-house or
licensed technologies that can assist editors and reviewers
while respecting confidentiality, proprietary and data privacy rights.


HOW TO LOG IN AND ACCESS YOUR REVIEW

Your review will be managed via an Elsevier submission system such as Editorial
Manager opens in new tab/window. Elsevier journals use different submission
systems so there is no one generic login link. To access the paper and deliver
your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received which will
bring you to the submission/reviewing system.


Play


HOW TO SUBMIT A REVIEW IN EDITORIAL MANAGER


ARTICLE- AND JOURNAL-SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

When you sit down to write the review, make sure 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 of our journals employ “structured peer review” whereby you will receive a
series of questions to make it easier for you to convey recommendations for
improvement in a structured manner. These questions address different aspects of
the manuscript, such as the quality of the data analysis, reproducibility, and
the overall clarity of the manuscript. You can find an overview of the core
questions (note that journals may also employ additional journal-specific
questions).

In any review, please keep the author (instead of the editor) in mind when
preparing your replies as your comments will likely be included in the decision
letter sent to the author. Also please make sure to reply to the questions in
sufficient detail when you are submitting your report in Editorial Manager, to
enable the author to most effectively improve the manuscript based on your
comments.

If the journal in question does not require you to respond to a list of specific
questions, you might find it useful to consider these questions and the below
generic points when you are preparing your review report.

FULL LENGTH RESEARCH ARTICLE

 * Examine the importance of the research 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.g.,
   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 ARTICLE

 * Discuss the importance of the topic/scope of the review

 * Assess the originality of the review

 * Comment on the author's representation of the most relevant recent advances
   in the field; specifically, determine whether the references are relevant to
   the topic and cover both historical literature and more recent developments

 * Offer comments on the writing, organization, tables and figures of the
   manuscript

 * Comment on the author's interpretation of the results

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


METHODOLOGY

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

 * Unsound methodology

 * Discredited method

 * Missing processes known to be influential on the area of reported research

 * A conclusion drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative
   evidence reported in the manuscript

For analytical papers examine the sampling report, which is mandated in
time-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’s narrative.

For more details and guidance you might find it helpful to view the information
on structured peer review.


SEX AND GENDER REPORTING

Although it might sound late, given that the research has already been concluded
and the data analyzed, the peer review process can still play an important role
in ensuring effective, transparent and complete sex and gender reporting.

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

As a general principle, the SAGER guidelines opens in new tab/window recommend
careful use of the words “sex” and “gender” in order to avoid confusing both
terms. The use of common definitions will improve the ability to conduct
meta-analyses of published and archived data. The term “sex” should be used as a
classification of male or female based on biological distinction to the extent
that this is possible to confirm. Per Heidari et al. opens in new tab/window:
"Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours and identities of
female, male 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 as
a binary (female/ male) factor. 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 section whether the sex
of participants was defined based on self-report or assigned following external
or internal examination of body characteristics, or through genetic testing or
other means. In studies of animals, the term “sex” 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 by 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 any
previous studies in the introductions that reveal or refute potential sex or
gender differences, and the rationale why they have or have not examined these
aspects in their study.

If the study included only one sex/gender, ensure this has been justified. If
the study included more than one sex/gender, ensure data are reported for all
the options that were recorded and that data disaggregated by sex/gender are
reported in full, in the main text or in the appendix or supplementary
materials. It is important to assess whether the methodology is appropriate to
capture possible sex and gender aspects. As a peer reviewer you may request
sub-group analysis 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 clearly justified in
the discussion section any limitation of their study due to lack of any sex- 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 and/or gender, nevertheless, it is important to
consider if sex and gender are relevant to the topic of the study, and whether
the study follows relevant guidelines, wherever applicable.


RESEARCH DATA 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 research data,
including data visualizations, to their submission to enable readers to interact
and engage more closely with their research after publication. Please be aware
that links to data might therefore be present in the submission files. These
items should also receive your attention during the peer review process.
Manuscripts may also contain database identifiers or accession numbers (e.g.,
genes) in relation to our database linking program.

Critical issues in research data, which are considered to be major flaws 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, allowing you
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.


ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Experiments including patient or animal data should properly be documented. Most
journals require ethical approval by the author’s host organization. Please
check journal-specific guidelines for such cases (available from the journal’s
homepage, accessible via the journal catalogue.


OVERVIEW

If you don’t spot any major flaws, take a break from the manuscript, giving you
time to think. Consider the article from your own perspective. When you sit down
to write the review, again make sure you familiarize yourself with any
journal-specific guidelines (these will be noted in the journal’s guide for
authors).


3. STRUCTURING YOUR REVIEW

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



Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and
support your judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully
understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your
comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data and evidence.


CHECKLIST

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

Also, here is an example of a published peer review report opens in new
tab/window.


YOUR RECOMMENDATION

When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the
editor will likely 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 would be happy to review the revised
   article); if you are recommending a revision, you must furnish the author
   with a clear, sound explanation of why this is necessary

Bear in mind that there will be the opportunity to direct separate comments to
both the editor and author. Once you are ready to submit your report, follow the
instructions in the email or visit our support center opens in new tab/window if
you encounter any difficulties.

Access the support center opens in new tab/window for further help.


THE FINAL DECISION

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


4. AFTER YOUR REVIEW

Once you have delivered your review, you might want to make use of Elsevier’s
Reviewer Hub opens in new tab/window to ensure that you receive credit for your
work. The platform provides a private profile page, certificates, editor
recognition as well as discounts for Elsevier services.

Do not forget that, even after finalizing your review, you must treat the
article and any linked files or data as confidential documents. This means you
must not share them or information about the review with anyone without prior
authorization from the editor.

Finally, we take the opportunity to thank you sincerely on behalf of the
journal, editors and author(s) for the time you have taken to give your valuable
input to the article.




TOOLS & RESOURCES

 * Free Certified Peer Reviewer course on Researcher Academy opens in new
   tab/window

 * Reviewer checklist opens in new tab/window




ARTICLES FROM REVIEWERS' UPDATE


Connect
WANT TO BECOME A CERTIFIED PEER REVIEWER?


Connect
HOW TO TACKLE YOUR FIRST REVIEW


Connect
PAVING THE WAY TO INCREASE DIVERSITY IN JOURNALS – AND RESEARCH


Connect
TEN REASONS TO ACCEPT YOUR (NEXT) INVITATION TO REVIEW

Useful links

 * Submit your paper
 * Shop Books & Journals
 * Open access
 * View all products
 * Elsevier Connect

About

 * About Elsevier
 * Careers
 * Global Press Office
 * Advertising, reprints & supplements
 * Modern slavery act statement

Support

 * Customer support
 * Resource center

Global | English

 LinkedIn opens in new tab/window Twitter opens in new tab/window Facebook opens
in new tab/window YouTube opens in new tab/window
 opens in new tab/window opens in new tab/window

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, its licensors, and contributors. All rights are
reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar
technologies.

 * Terms & Conditions
 * Privacy policy
 * Accessibility
 * Cookie settings