For Reviewers
Your expertise helps ensure the quality of scientific research published in Core Collection. Thank you for your valuable contribution to the peer review process.
Contribute to Science
Help maintain the quality of scientific literature and support fellow researchers.
Stay Current
Access cutting-edge research before publication and stay updated in your field.
Recognition
Receive acknowledgment for your contributions in our annual reviewer appreciation.
Professional Development
Enhance your critical analysis skills and gain editorial experience.
The Review Process
Receive Invitation
You'll receive an email invitation with the manuscript title and abstract. Review this information to determine if you can provide an expert assessment.
Please respond within 7 days
Conduct Review
Carefully read the manuscript and evaluate it against our review criteria. Prepare constructive feedback for both the authors and the editor.
- Assess scientific merit
- Check methodology
- Evaluate data and results
- Review references
Submit Report
Complete the review form with your assessment scores, comments to authors, and confidential comments to the editor. Provide your recommendation.
- Score each criterion
- Write detailed comments
- Make recommendation
Deadline: 21 days from acceptance
Review Criteria
Evaluate manuscripts based on these key criteria. Rate each on a scale of 1-5, where 1 is poor and 5 is excellent.
Originality
High WeightDoes the work present novel findings or perspectives?
Significance
High WeightDoes the research advance knowledge in the field?
Methodology
High WeightAre the methods appropriate and well-described?
Data Quality
High WeightIs the data reliable and properly analyzed?
Presentation
Medium WeightIs the manuscript clearly written and well-organized?
References
Medium WeightAre references appropriate and up-to-date?
Recommendation Options
Based on your evaluation, recommend one of the following decisions:
Accept
The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minor copyediting changes.
Minor Revision
The manuscript requires minor changes that can be verified by the editor.
Major Revision
Significant changes are needed; the revised manuscript will be sent for re-review.
Reject
The manuscript has fundamental flaws or is not suitable for the journal.
Writing Effective Reviews
Do's
- ✓Be specific and cite examples from the manuscript
- ✓Provide constructive suggestions for improvement
- ✓Organize comments by importance (major/minor)
- ✓Acknowledge the strengths of the work
- ✓Support criticisms with evidence or references
- ✓Be respectful and professional in tone
Don'ts
- ✗Make vague or general criticisms
- ✗Use harsh or dismissive language
- ✗Request unnecessary additional experiments
- ✗Let personal biases influence your assessment
- ✗Delay your review without communication
- ✗Share or use unpublished ideas from the manuscript
Ethical Guidelines
Confidentiality
Treat the manuscript as confidential. Do not share or discuss it with others.
Objectivity
Provide unbiased feedback based on scientific merit, not personal opinions.
Conflicts of Interest
Declare any conflicts and decline if you cannot provide an impartial review.
Timeliness
Complete your review within the agreed timeframe or notify the editor.
Constructive Feedback
Provide specific, constructive comments to help authors improve their work.
Academic Integrity
Report any suspected misconduct, plagiarism, or ethical concerns.
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about the peer review process.
Become a Reviewer
Share your expertise and help shape the future of scientific publishing. Register your interest to join our reviewer database.