awaiting handling editor assignment

After submitting

In this section:

• NEW! Featured Author Support
• Tracking your submission
• My paper has been accepted – what next?
• Appeals and rebuttals
• BMJ Article Transfer Service
• Abstracting and indexing
• Archiving, permissions and copyright
• Article metrics and alerts
• Correction and retraction policies
• Publication embargo
• Rapid responses

The review process

1. Awaiting Editorial Production Assistant Processing

The Editorial Production Assistant will carry out quality checks on your article at which point you may need to provide further information before your article is sent for Peer Review.

2. Awaiting Editor Assignment: 

Your article has passed initial quality checks by the Editorial Production Assistant and is in the process of being assigned to an appropriate Editor who will evaluate your article for scope, quality, and fit for the journal. Papers that do not meet these criteria will be rejected.

3. Awaiting Reviewer Selection

Your article meets the Journal’s scope and has been approved for peer review. The Editorial Team are in the process of finding suitable external expert reviewers that are available to review your article. Your article may also be sent to relevant Associate Editor’s for internal review. For most articles, a minimum of two reviews are required. Articles can be sent to multiple prospective reviewers before the required number are secured.

4. Peer Review in Progress

Your article has secured the minimum number of required reviewers. Peer reviewers are given 2 weeks to submit their review of your article. On the occasion that a reviewer withdraws from the process, the Editorial Team will begin the reviewer selection process again.

 5. Awaiting Editor Decision

Your article has now received the minimum number of reviews required to make a decision. The Editor will take into account the expert reviewers’ opinions to make an informed decision of accept, reject or revise.

6. In Production

Your article has been accepted and you will receive an email to confirm. Your article will move through the final quality checks and in to Production where it will be processed for publication. You will be emailed by the Production Editor with a timeline and be provided with a link to a platform called Publishing at Work where you can continue to track your article’s progress. More information about the Production process can be found here .

No recent searches

Popular Articles

Sorry! nothing found for

How can I check the status of my submitted paper?

Modified on Wed, 7 Aug at 1:03 PM

To check the status of your submission in our system, log into your ScholarOne Manuscripts account, and click on “Author.” Under the Author Dashboard Section, click on “Submitted Manuscripts.” 

Please note that the following definitions generally apply to most journals. Each journal follows its own workflow, so some terms may not apply. Please contact the journal's editorial office for clarification.

Was this article helpful?

That’s Great!

Thank you for your feedback

Sorry! We couldn't be helpful

Let us know how can we improve this article! *

Feedback sent

We appreciate your effort and will try to fix the article

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

What does "awaiting EIC decision" mean when it occurs immediately after "awaiting reviewer selection"? [duplicate]

I submitted a paper to a top journal last week. At first, the status showed "awaiting AE recommendation". A few days ago, it was changed to "awaiting reviewer selection". So I thought it passed the associate editor's evaluation and now they were looking for reviewers. Even yesterday the status was still "awaiting reviewer selection", but today it was changed to "awaiting EIC decision". What does this mean? Does this mean that the AE changed his/her mind and recommended to desk reject my paper and put forth his/her recommendation to the editor?

• journal-workflow

2 Answers 2

Sometimes tracking systems do not work very well and a change of status could mean nothing. Since I am a pessimist person I would give the same interpretation as you, but it is impossible to know. The wait is frightening but in this case is all what we have. Good luck!

• Indeed -- it is impossible to know. The online systems map only poorly onto the workflows of editors. You cannot draw any inferences based on what they report. Have patience. –  Wolfgang Bangerth Commented Dec 6, 2017 at 18:23

Usually, the handling editor (or whatever name they have in the journal’s system) handles a paper in one go, which typically includes:

• They decide whether the paper is actually a good fit for the journal or they want to desk-reject the paper.
• They decide whether anything needs to be done before sending the paper to peer review.
• They select the peer reviewers.

Now, an editorial management has to somehow summarise that you are waiting for this step. A good compromise between precision and conciseness would arguably awaiting potential reviewer selection or awaiting editorial assessment, but there are also journals who call this just awaiting reviewer selection.

Thus the interpretation that suggests itself would be that the handling editor did find out something that has to be decided upon first. If you hadn’t already passed a step called awaiting AE recommendation, the handling editor recommending desk rejection would indeed be my best guess. Apart from that it could be something trivial like you botching a figure or the list of citations.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged journal-workflow .

• Featured on Meta
• Introducing an accessibility dashboard and some upcoming changes to display...
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• Decimal expansion definition of real numbers, constructively
• All files in Azure volume corrupted, with .00000001 appended to the end of the filename
• Do radios need a minimum range to function properly?
• The rank of elliptic curves and related quadratic twists
• Can the Bible be the word of God, when there are multiple versions of it?
• Does full erase create all 0s or all 1s on the CD-RW?
• Is there such a thing as a probability of God?
• Possible bug in DateList, DateObject etc returning negative years in 14.1
• Direct limits in homotopy category
• A 111 years old mosaic
• MPs assuming office on the day of the election
• Counting them 100 years later
• When can a citizen's arrest of an Interpol fugitive be legal in Washington D.C.?
• how to replace Info with Emacs
• Why is the completely dark disk of the Moon visible on a new moon if the lunar orbit is at an angle to the Earth’s?
• test & train for very very small data
• How can electrons hop large distances if they are connected to the atom which is stationary in an lattice?
• Refereeing papers by people you are very close to
• In relation to the Tandy TRS-80 Model 1 and Model III, what are "ISAM" and "PDS"?
• Will lights plugged into cigarette lighter drain the battery to the point that the truck won't start?
• Can an elf and a firbolg breed?
• Machine Learning Model to Predict the Type of Variable Star from Light Curve
• What is the lowest feasible depth for lightly-armed military submarines designed around the 1950s-60s?
• How to find a simplified sinogram in a paper dictionary

The peer review process

The peer review process can be broadly summarized into 10 steps, although these steps can vary slightly between journals. Explore what’s involved, below.

Editor Feedback: “Reviewers should remember that they are representing the readers of the journal. Will the readers of this particular journal find this informative and useful?”

1. Submission of Paper

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is usually via an online system such as ScholarOne Manuscripts. Occasionally, journals may accept submissions by email.

2. Editorial Office Assessment

The Editorial Office checks that the paper adheres to the requirements described in the journal’s Author Guidelines. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)

The EIC checks assesses the paper, considering its scope, originality and merits. The EiC may reject the paper at this stage.

4. EIC Assigns an Associate Editor (AE)

Some journals have Associate Editors ( or equivalent ) who handle the peer review. If they do, they would be assigned at this stage.

5. Invitation to Reviewers

The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of reviewers is secured– commonly this is 2, but there is some variation between journals.

6. Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline the invitation to review. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.

7. Review is Conducted

The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with the reviewer’s recommendation (e.g. to revise, accept or reject the paper).

8. Journal Evaluates the Reviews

The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making a decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

9. The Decision is Communicated

The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Comments will be anonymous if the journal follows a single-anonymous or double-anonymous peer review model. Journals with following an open or transparent peer review model will share the identities of the reviewers with the author(s).

10. Next Steps

An editor's perspective.

Listen to a podcast from Roger Watson, Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Advanced Nursing, as he discusses 'The peer review process'.

If accepted , the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision , the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision , the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.

[email protected]

Submitted my paper. Now what?

Feb 18, 2022 | Scholarly publishing

There is something of an air of mystery as to what actually happens to your manuscript once you’ve pressed that “submit” button. It seemingly goes off into cyberspace and you are left playing the waiting game.

These days, if you’ve submitted to a journal via an online submission system, you will be able to track its progress to some extent as you will generally be able to see what stage it’s at. The names of these stages can, however, seem fairly vague and almost worse than no information at all.

So let’s translate them. There are many different submission systems and the stages a manuscript goes through during peer review does differ system to system (and, indeed, journal to journal), so for the purposes of this post we’re going to look at the most common stages of the most common submission site: ScholarOne (formally Manuscript Central).

First Steps

Initially your manuscript will go through stages such as “Awaiting Admin Checklist” and/or “Awaiting Editor Assignment” depending on how new submissions are initially checked on the journal. These stages tend to be moved through fairly swiftly as they are just the editorial team checking that your submission is suitable for peer review and then deciding which of the editors will be responsible for it during the process.

Awaiting Reviewer Selection

This is the first stage of the peer-review process and your manuscript will be here until the assigned Editor has selected some suitable experts to invite to review.

Once enough reviewers have been selected, the manuscript will move on to the next stage. If only one reviewer agrees to review and all the others decline the invitation, however, your manuscript may well return to this stage while the Editor selects more. So if you log in to check on progress several weeks after submission and find your manuscript at this stage, it doesn’t necessarily mean that no action has been taken.

Awaiting Reviewer Invitation

This means that potential reviewers have been selected, but have yet to be invited. Manuscripts quite often return to this stage if not enough of the invited reviewers accepted the invitation so further invitations need to be sent. It’s quite common for editors to select a lot of reviewers, but only invite a few at a time.

Awaiting Reviewer Assignment

This rather ambiguous stage is when reviewers have been invited, but we are waiting for the required number to agree to review. In other words, at this point, the ball is squarely in the reviewers’ court!

In an ideal world, enough of the invited reviewers will agree to review and your manuscript will move on to the next stage. In reality, however, it is quite normal for invited reviewers to be unavailable and for your manuscript to return to one of the earlier stages a couple of times.

Awaiting Reviewer Scores

This is the stage that the editorial team will be striving to get your manuscript to as swiftly as possible. If your manuscript is at this stage, then enough experts have agreed to read and evaluate it and we just need to wait for the reviewers to return their comments so that a decision can be taken.

Once through this stage, your manuscript will move on to a stage such as “Awaiting Recommendation” and/or “Awaiting Decision” and it generally won’t be long before a decision is sent to you.

So That’s It?

That’s it. There are, of course, many things that can cause delays to the process, but the majority of manuscripts move from one stage to the next fairly swiftly.

• Company information and news
• Scholarly publishing
• Testimonials
• Company Statements
•  Privacy Notice
• Terms & Conditions
• Modern Slavery Statement
• Equality, Diversity & Inclusion
• Anti-Bribery Statement

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Editorial and Peer Review Process

PLOS ONE is a peer reviewed scientific journal with a rigorous editorial screening and assessment process made up of several stages.

PLOS ONE considers original research articles from all disciplines within the journal’s scope in the natural sciences, medical research, engineering, as well as the related social sciences and humanities. The editors make decisions on submissions based on scientific rigor, regardless of novelty.

All authors, editors, and reviewers are expected to reply to journal queries in a timely manner, and to comply with  PLOS’ Code of Conduct for Editorial Board Members  and our policies on Ethical Peer Review and  Standards for Professional Conduct . Any concerns about the content of correspondence or reviews should be raised to the attention of journal staff by emailing  [email protected] .

Understanding Manuscript Statuses

Initial Checks

Editorial Review

Peer Review

Editorial Decisions

Accepted Manuscripts

Peer Review History

Transferring to Other Journals

If you have questions at any stage in the process, please  email us .

• Search Search
• Submitting research
• Editing a journal
• Peer reviewing
• What's new?
• Assigning editors

Manuscripts are initially assigned to editors either manually or automatically. This is defined when the journal is set up in Snapp, and can be changed afterwards in consultation with your Publisher. Assigned editors receive an email to let them know that they have submissions, so that they can perform the suitability assessment.

Manual assignment

If your journal is set up with manual assignment, the lead editors (usually editors-in-chief) are notified of all new submissions to the journal. They can then assign each one to an appropriate handling editor. They can also assign to themselves.

Information is available to help with the selection of an editor, including:

• The topic area and keywords assigned to each editor (if provided)
• The number of submissions currently assigned to each editor
• The role assigned to each editor
• Information that the editor is currently unavailable (if provided)

Round-robin assignment 

This means that manuscripts are automatically assigned equally to lead editors (usually editors-in-chief). If the journal has a single lead editor, all manuscripts will be automatically assigned to them, so that they can perform the suitability assessment. After this check, lead editors can reassign submissions to an appropriate handling editor.

Assignment by topic

Editors are each assigned a distinct topic, and authors choose from these topics on submission of their manuscript. Each editor can be assigned a single topic only, however more than one editor can have the same topic. Assignment to an editor is done based on matching these topics, either manually by the lead editor, or by the journal’s editorial assistant.

Assignment in collections and special issues

For submissions that are associated with a collection or special issue, assignment is always manual and can be done by either the lead editor or assigning editor for the collection, or the lead editor of the journal. They can see a list of guest editors working on the collection or special issue, if applicable, and a separate list of the journal’s editors.

Information is available to help with the selection of a guest editor, including:

Snapp Campus guides for editors

• Getting started with Snapp
• Research integrity
• Assessing suitability
• Finding reviewers
• Making a decision
• Tracking progress
• Roles and permissions

Assigning a submission

• Go to the ' Tasks ' section of the dashboard.
• Choose an ' Assign submission ' task.
• Select ' Assign to me ' if you will handle it.
• If it should go to another handling editor, choose ' Assign ' next to their name.

The handling editor will receive an email letting them know they have been assigned a manuscript.

Reassigning to another editor

Lead editors can reassign manuscripts at any time.

• Go to the ' Submissions ' section on the dashboard.
• Select the submission.
• Select ' Reassign submission ' under the ' Actions ' button.
• Choose a new editor to handle the submission.

The newly assigned editor will receive an email letting them know that they have been assigned a manuscript.

Unassigning yourself from a submission

All editors can unassign themselves from handling a manuscript if they are unable to work on it.

• Select ' Unassign myself ' under the ' Actions ' button.

Lead editors will receive a task to reassign the submission to another editor.

• Open science
• Tools & Services
• Account Development
• Sales and account contacts
• Professional
• Press office
• Locations & Contact

We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. Visit our main website for more information.

• © 2024 Springer Nature
• General terms and conditions
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Your Privacy Choices / Manage Cookies
• Accessibility
• Legal notice
• Help us to improve this site, send feedback.

如何应对投稿后的各种状态

SCI 期刊投稿各种状态显示对投稿者来说是非常重要的，本文主要介绍了不同状态投稿者需要注意的事项。

1. S ubmitted to Journal 

一般的步骤是这样的： 网上投稿 Submit a manuscript：先到每个杂志的首页，打开 submit paper 一栏，先以通讯作者的身份 register 一个账号，然后以 author login 身份登录，按照提示依次完成：Select Article Type、Enter Title、Add/Edit/Remove Authors、Submit Abstract、Enter Keywords、Select Classifications、Enter Comments、Request Editor、Attach Files，最后下载 pdf，查看无误后，即可到投稿主页 approve submission 或直接 submit it。

总结：对于投稿之前和提交确认投稿过程，这里还需要对投稿新手强调以下几点。因为这些小问题被编辑评个低印象分不划算，被打回也浪费了时间和精力。

大多数系统是要求 word 投稿正文内容的，pdf 多不为接受格式。但也有很少数要求用 pdf 格式的，务必注意细看稿约。

文献格式是否按拟投杂志标准要求核准？有的投稿系统是可以直接检查的。

引用文献条数是否符合该杂志要求？有的杂志不特别要求，有的还是非常重视的。如我之前投 shock 杂志，编辑和一位审稿人都提到参考文献不要超过 35 条。如果你文章写完后，能够适当精简文献条数，那么，请删减几条吧。

很多系统要求勾选同意一些如伦理道德的声明文件。

提交后可能会有一个小栏目提示对提交图片的质量做了初步审查（不合格的最好重新作图再上传）。

绝大多数投稿完成后需要 view submission 和最后确认（approve submission）。view submission 就是要求你再整体看看投稿填写的这些资料信息 + cover letter + 正文 + 图片表格，所生成的 pdf 全文是否满意、合格，也是你投稿完成前最后一次检查的机会了。

有的新手可能不注意这点，提交后就不管了，还开开心心以为自己投稿成功，殊不知结果邮箱里一直没有收到投稿后的邮件回执和稿号，直到最后纳闷几天了才回去看系统状态。

2.  Manuscript received by Editorial Office

文章到了编辑手里了，证明投稿成功。

3.  With editor

若投稿时未要求选择编辑，则先到主编处，主编会分派给副主编或者其他编辑。这当中就会有这几个状态： 

Awaiting Editor Assignment 指派责任编辑 。

Editor assigned 是把你的文章分给一个编辑处理了。 

Editor Declined Invitation 如果编辑接手处理了就会邀请审稿人了。 

总结：一般情况下，投稿（submit）状态后一个星期内会出现编辑处理稿件（with editor）这个状态。很多老外编辑很不能理解中国人喜欢催稿，绝大多数情况下，他们不会像国内某些期刊一样能拖上一年半载再给屁大点修回意见。

要适当给编辑一点时间处理，他们也很忙的。不要轻易催稿，也有人因为催稿而立马收到杯具消息——不知是编辑不耐烦了，还是一种巧合。当然，如果 submit 四个星期后网上投稿系统还没出现 with editor 状态信息，就要询问主编了，要注意委婉用语。不过要注意，也有期刊没有 with editor 状态。

4.  Decision Letter Being Prepared 或 Reviewers invited

with editor 后送审可能有的两种状态：

Decision Letter Being Prepared 就是编辑没找审稿人就自己决定了，一般而言此时很危险。一可能是英文太差，需要语言润色。 二可能是内容太差。 除非被大牛们直接接收。 

Reviewer(s) invited 找到审稿人了，就开始审稿。

5.  Under review

此过程的等待较为漫长。当然之前各步骤也可能很慢，要看编辑的处理情况。

总结： 这个过程也不要轻易催稿，一般都是已邀请审稿人和已送审等过程中。如果被邀请审稿人不想审，就会 decline，编辑会重新邀请别的审稿人。

我之前一篇 SCI 投 inflammation research 初审就用了四个半月，而且还是中途催稿两次。之后小修两次，不符审稿人口味，八个月杯具了，那时心情万分沉重难受。

6.  Required Reviews Completed

表示审稿意见已经返回给编辑。

这个状态大多情况下不会持续太久，几小时到几天为多，基本上根据最初投稿后分配的稿件编号数量可以预测到这个过程的处理时间。稍安勿躁，安心等待吧。

7.  Evaluating Recommendation

评估审稿人的意见，随后你将收到编辑给你的 decision 。

8.  Decision in process

总结：这时候应该全部审稿人意见回来了，编辑开始斟酌意见、处理稿件。有的稿子评价都很好，一般都很快就决定 accept 或者小修；有的稿件审稿评价均很差，则无一例外会 reject 。

值得重视的是：相当一部分情况是等待时间一周以上的，多是由于审稿人意见不统一，有好有坏，这时候编辑可能会自己决定此文章的命运，可能充分尊重审稿人意见 而拒稿（这种情况处理也很快的），可能编委会讨论决定是再修（major revision 可能性较大，否则就直接 Reject），也可能会找一位审稿人。这时要根据不同的状态而出现等待时间不一了。

9.  Minor revision/Major revision

能有条件就尽量补实验，是在不行就认真考虑理由申辩，但谦虚谨慎的语气必不可少。毕竟大修的也存在一定的拒稿率，而小修的绝大多数是能够最后搞定的。

10.  Revision Submitted to Journal

11.  Accepted

接受，这是最开心的时候了。

享受 accept 后的小幸福和快乐 。

了解稿件接受后期的其他相关问题主要有：作者信息和地址的准确性、版权转让、校样 proof、单行本、版面费等。注意了解本帖之（六）「稿件接受后期的其他相关问题」内容。

动态关注邮箱情况，注意查收邮件，编辑会要求尽快完善 copyright transfer agreement 的，后面的工作就会转给出版商了。清样 proof 的时间不定，短的一两周，长的半年都有，但一般情况下都是 4～6 周左右。后面还会陆续提及版面费（若你所投期刊免版面费除外）、彩图费、单行本等问题。

最最后重要的一件事：在论文版分享你进行课题设计、完成实验，以及写作与投稿中的经验收获。

12.  Reject

这里就不必多说了。对于我们广大的硕士博士研究生而言，绝大多数人是有着杯具经历的，那种心情大多体会过，一定要振奋精神。希望大家整理好心情，重新上路。

Initial QC Started： 

QC 即 quality contro，Initial QC Started，就是说编辑刚开始初审，还没有提交给审稿人。

这个是编辑部会有个对文章格式、附图等的检查，等着就行了。如果有问题他们会联系你的，关注邮箱或系统吧。 

如投稿后 editor assigment pending 等待责任编辑处理。

审稿后 decision pending 目前已外审结束，等待编辑决定。

本网站所有注明“来源：丁香园”的文字、图片和音视频资料，版权均属于丁香园所有，非经授权，任何媒体、网站或个人不得转载，授权转载时须注明“来源：丁香园”。本网所有转载文章系出于传递更多信息之目的，且明确注明来源和作者，不希望被转载的媒体或个人可与我们联系，我们将立即进行删除处理。同时转载内容不代表本站立场。

全错了！和患者同住 3 周，医生发现几十万人全被误诊

灰指甲的「克星」居然是它？！很多人却不敢用

孩子发烧，用退热栓好吗？要注意什么？

Editor guidelines

Frontiers' collaborative peer review is unique and quality-focused. Read on for a guide for reviewers on what to expect of our peer review process.

What is Frontiers' peer review model?

Frontiers operates a single anonymized model during the review process. This means the reviewers know who the authors are in order to offer a full assessment within the context of their research and to ensure they can avoid any potential competing interests in accepting a review invitation.

Frontiers also believes that reviewers should be acknowledged for their work in conducting peer review. We believe in transparency and ensuring no bias during the peer review process. This is why we disclose the name of all endorsing reviewers upon publication, for every article we publish.

What to expect from our collaborative peer review

Our peer review platform is collaborative: it unites authors, reviewers, and the handling editor in a direct online dialog, enabling quick iterations and facilitating consensus. Editors and reviewers work with the authors to improve their manuscript.

Independent review phase

Once a reviewer accepts the invitation to review, they are sent an email with a link to the online review forum. In the review forum, they can access and review the manuscript and supporting documents. During this first review phase the reviewers assess the paper independently from each other and the authors.

The review is completed by answering a review questionnaire provided in the review forum, and tailored for each article type (original research, review, study protocol, clinical trial, etc). When submitting their review report, a reviewer will also submit their recommendation to the editor. At this stage they are able to directly endorse the manuscript and finalize their review process, should the manuscript meet our acceptance criteria.

Once all reviewers have submitted their review report, the handling editor is responsible for activating the next phase of the process: the interactive review. Even if the review reports are unfavorable to the authors, the collaborative review forum is activated to allow authors the opportunity of a rebuttal.

Interactive review phase

Once the interactive review phase is activated, authors are notified and are able to view and respond to reviewers' comments within the review forum. Reviewers are notified when the author has replied in full, and/or resubmitted their manuscript in line with reviewer comments.

If needed, reviewers can enter a dialog with the author to request clarifications or further revisions. They can also access and comment on other reviewers' review reports.

If the reviewer feels the authors have made the required changes and the paper is suitable for publication, they may endorse it. Alternatively, if it is felt that the authors have not or cannot bring the paper up to standard, reviewers can recommend that it be rejected.

How to peer review

Reviewers are the crucial facilitator between the author and the handling editor. From a position of expertise, reviewers guide and enable fellow researchers to get their work out into the world, in the best condition it can be.

To support our reviewers, we have put together some tips and lists of things to consider when getting ready to review, and in writing a fair and constructive review.

Before accepting the invitation

When you receive an invitation to review, it is important to consider the following points before accepting.

Is the manuscript within my expertise? Think about whether the manuscript is suitably within your area of expertise. If not, please decline the invite, and consider helping us by suggesting alternative relevant experts.

Do I have the time? We strive to keep our peer review process efficient and as such reviewers are requested to complete their reports within seven days after they accept the invite. You should let the editorial office know if you aren't able to provide a review but may be able to participate at another time.

Do I have a conflict of interest? Once the invitation is accepted, as a reviewer you will be asked to complete a short questionnaire regarding conflicts of interest to establish any relationship with the author(s) of the manuscript which may make it inappropriate for you to review. Conflicts of interest are assessed on a case by case basis and may not be disqualifying, so please disclose all answers in full. Further details on this are available here .

Respond to the invitation We ask reviewers to respond to the review invitation as soon as they can. You are of course free to decline to review if you feel that you lack the time or expertise, and we always appreciate recommendations for alternative reviewers.

If a reviewer realizes that seven days will be insufficient to complete their review, or if there will be a delay to the deadline after the invitation has been accepted, they can contact the editorial office. We will be happy to assist.

During peer review

Before a manuscript is sent for peer review, our research integrity team and the handling editor will already have carried out initial quality checks.

The aims of our reviewers should always be to:

focus on the quality of the science objectively

collaborate towards improvement and think constructively

help the author and editor understand what is needed with clear comments.

Below are our tips for ensuring a quality report is produced.

Respect the scope Authors provide a 'contribution to the field' statement with their manuscript to explain the article's intended scope and relevance. Keep the focus on what the manuscript is aiming to do, even if your expertise extends in a related direction. You should avoid recommending authors vastly expand the scope of the manuscript (e.g. "you only dealt with x, you need to deal with y"), or taking them outside their manuscript's intended scope.

Focus on science Be objective – Frontiers discloses author names to reviewers for full transparency, however, reviewers are not asked to assess the author, only the manuscript. Also, it is not necessary to flag small copy-editing errors: our production team will ensure those are fixed during typesetting. Our processes ensure you should focus solely on the research itself.

Provide constructive feedback Comments should seek to recommend reasonable improvements, in a polite and impersonal tone. Show professional courtesy by thinking about what you would want to receive on a paper of your own. And if it is good, say so – and also say why!

Consider field specifics Are there elements of the research specific to the field you work in? If so, apply your expertise to give feedback on these. It will be helpful to all involved in the manuscript's review process.

What not to do

Don't be vague or too brief Authors find precise and detailed feedback extremely helpful, and this tends to result in a timely and smoother review process. Whereas a brief report will often lead to additional questions from authors. Make sure recommendations and decisions are explained clearly. You should make good use of the detailed questionnaire provided in the collaborative review platform to provide a clear assessment.

Don't leave out key points in your initial report The initial report should be thorough and provide all the necessary feedback upfront. While it is possible that further revisions to the paper will bring up new questions, be sure to include your key points in your initial report. Ensure you conclude your report with a clear recommendation for the handling editor. You are the expert and your guidance is highly valued.

Don't drop out of the peer review To ensure an efficient process for all involved, please try to submit your responses on time. If you need to request an extension or to withdraw from the review process you can do this directly in the review forum at any time, or contact the editorial office for support. Try to place yourself in the authors' shoes, as they anxiously await feedback on their submission.

Keep in touch

Encountering any issues during review or have any concerns with the manuscript? Need assistance using our review platform? Need to request an extension to submit your review? For these or any other inquiries or updates, do not hesitate to contact your journal's office .

After peer review

Recognizing reviewers.

Reviewers who endorse a manuscript for publication are recognized for their work by being named on the published article. The names are listed alongside the editor's both on the published article page, and the article final files.

But it is important to remember that if a reviewer recommends the rejection of a manuscript, or withdraws from the review process, their name will not be made available to the authors and is not published alongside the manuscript.

Irrespective of the reviewer's recommendation, when a report is submitted the reviewer will receive a confirmation email to acknowledge their work, including a copy of their report. While the report itself is not to be shared in any public forum, reviewers may use the confirmation email to obtain recognition for their involvement in the peer review process with their institution or other platforms. Their reports will also not be lost should they recommend rejection or withdraw from the review process later on.