Skip to content

Reviewers Code

As a reviewer, it is crucial to take into account a number of ethical and practical guidelines when reviewing publications. Our aim is to build a robust and reliable community of reviewers, and to this end we need to stipulate a series of best practices.

Before accepting the review

When you are invited or suggested to review an article, make sure that:

  • There is no conflict of interest with the article, the author or its content.
  • You are an expert and qualified in the discipline(s) covered in the article.
  • You have enough time to meet the deadline.
  • Your opinion and vision of the author is totally neutral.

Reviewing principles

  • Read and analyze the entire article, including extra files such as tables, graphs, images...
  • Demonstrate your understanding of the article by analysing both general and specific aspects.
  • Be critical, but always respectful. The objective should be to collaborate with the author to improve the publication.
  • Focus on the scientific content. Avoid using a disrespectful tone in your review.
  • Meet the deadline. Realistically calculate how much time you will have to invest in the revision.
  • Avoid any kind of bias
  • Be specific in your comments. The author should be able to understand and follow your criteria by reading your notes.
  • The review should be written in good, understandable English.

Decision Types

Once you have reviewed the article, a final decision is required. There are three types of decisions you can make about a publication.

  • Accepted: The publication requires no further revision.
  • Minor Revision Required: The article can be published after some minor revisions according to the reviewer's criteria.
  • Major Revision Required: The publication is unacceptable for publication. Major substantive reviews must be done.