Independent and constructive assessment
For Reviewers
Reviewers help editors assess whether a manuscript is scientifically sound, ethically reported and useful to the field. A review should be independent, confidential, evidence-based and constructive.
Before accepting
- Confirm relevant subject and methodological expertise.
- Declare every actual or perceived conflict.
- Check that the invitation deadline is feasible.
- Decline if confidentiality or impartiality cannot be maintained.
On this page
Before accepting
- Accept only when the manuscript falls within your subject and methodological expertise.
- Check the invitation scope, accessible files and proposed deadline.
- Declare personal, professional, financial, institutional and competitive conflicts.
- Decline if impartiality, capacity or confidentiality cannot be maintained.
- Do not delegate or involve a trainee without prior editorial permission and named accountability.
Reviewers are selected and vetted by the journal; an account or expression of interest does not create a right to review.
Confidentiality and AI tools
The manuscript, figures, data, supplementary files, review and correspondence are confidential. Do not share, retain for unrelated use, contact authors, or use unpublished findings for personal advantage. Do not upload any manuscript content to a public or unauthorized generative-AI, translation, summarization, coding or analysis service. The reviewer remains responsible for every comment.
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
What to assess
Question and contribution
Is the question clear and in scope, and are the claims proportionate to the evidence?
Methods and reproducibility
Assess design, controls, sampling, power or statistics, protocols, instruments, software and reproducibility.
Ethics and safety
Check human approval, consent and privacy; animal welfare; biosafety, biosecurity and dual use; and registration where applicable.
Biological materials
Check cell-line identity and contamination controls and the origin and identifiers of critical reagents, strains and constructs.
Data, code and images
Check the availability statement, repositories, accessions, figure-data consistency and signs of inappropriate manipulation.
Reporting and interpretation
Check relevant reporting guidance, limitations, null or negative findings and whether conclusions follow from the results.
Writing the report
- Separate comments for authors from confidential comments for the editor.
- Lead with a short summary and number major and minor points.
- Cite the page, line, figure or table and explain why each essential change matters.
- Distinguish required corrections from optional suggestions and review the work, not the authors.
- Do not rewrite to personal style or request unnecessary citations, self-citations or citations intended to raise metrics.
Recommendations
A recommendation is advice to the editor, not the final decision. It must follow from the report and use the labels available in the manuscript system. Do not tell authors that a manuscript will be accepted or rejected.
Suspected misconduct or unsafe research
Do not accuse authors in comments. Record the specific concern and evidence in confidential comments and alert the handling editor. Preserve confidentiality and allow the journal to follow its integrity procedure.
Revised manuscripts
Compare the response letter and tracked changes with the previous report, determine whether essential points were answered and evaluate new data or analyses. Avoid introducing unrelated demands unless new material creates a material concern.
Deadline and support
Use the deadline stated in the individual invitation. Accept only if it is feasible; request an extension or decline as soon as possible if circumstances change. Raise conflicts, missing files, confidentiality, ethics or access questions through the authorized manuscript record.
Any acknowledgment of reviewer service must protect manuscript and reviewer confidentiality and must be verified by the editorial office before it is promised.
Review the governing standards
The Editorial Policies explain peer review, recusal, research ethics, data expectations and published-record actions.
Reviewer participation does not influence the editorial handling of the reviewer’s own submissions.