01

How reviewers are chosen

—  The handling editor invites at least two independent reviewers for each manuscript. A third reviewer may be added if the first two reviews conflict sharply.

—  Reviewers are chosen for their knowledge of the subject or the methods, for their independence, their availability, and their professional conduct. They should have at least one publication as an author in a Scopus- or Web of Science-indexed journal. A doctorate is not required.

—  Editors find reviewers through their own knowledge of the field, the reference list of the manuscript, bibliographic databases, the journal’s own pool of reviewers, and the people who have applied through Become a Reviewer.

—  Authors may suggest or oppose reviewers. Suggestions are checked independently and are not necessarily followed, and the editor makes the final choice. Where possible, at least one reviewer comes from outside the journal’s home institution.

02

Checks

—  The editor checks that a reviewer can be verified through an institutional email address and an ORCID iD, and checks the reviewer’s publication record.

—  Editors avoid reviewers who are close to the authors: those who recently collaborated with them, work at the same institution, supervise or are supervised by them, or are in a close personal relationship with them. See Reviewer Competing Interests.

—  Unusually fast or templated reviews, and linked accounts, are looked at by the editor.

03

Diversity

Editors may consider the institutional and geographic variety of reviewers, to bring a wider range of perspectives. Scholarly competence and the absence of disqualifying conflicts always come first.

04

Recognition

Reviewers receive a certificate of reviewing, and their names are listed on the Reviewer List. The certificate and the list do not disclose any manuscript.

05

Related

Peer Review Policy  ·  Reviewer Guidelines  ·  Reviewer List  ·  Become a Reviewer

06

Sources

This policy is based on the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE):