Information for Reviewers

Publication ethics
To ensure the highest standards in publication ethics, RSEL follows the policies and best practices promoted by independent organisations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers are expected to act responsibly, fairly, and confidentially throughout the process.

Peer review model and timeline
RSEL uses double-blind peer review. Reviewers are normally asked to submit their report within 4 weeks. If you are unable to review within this timeframe, please decline the invitation promptly so that an alternative reviewer can be appointed.
For full details of the workflow (editorial screening, decision criteria, and appeals), please see: Peer Review Process [LINK].

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should

  • Accept only manuscripts for which they have the relevant subject expertise.
  • Accept only if they can deliver the report within 4 weeks.
  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest (financial, professional, personal, institutional, or competitive). If in doubt, contact the editors.
  • Confirm they can comply with confidentiality and ethical standards.

Confidentiality and responsible conduct
Reviewers must:

  • Treat the manuscript and the review process as confidential, during and after review.
  • Not share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript with others without editorial permission.
  • Not use information obtained through peer review for personal advantage or to disadvantage or discredit others.
  • Not allow bias based on the author(s)’ nationality, religion, political beliefs, gender, or other personal characteristics, nor by commercial considerations.
  • Provide an objective and constructive assessment, avoiding hostile language or libellous or derogatory personal comments.

Data, materials, and anonymity

  • If the manuscript includes data, materials, or supplementary files that require additional information for assessment, please contact the editorial team.
  • Do not request information or materials from the authors in a way that could compromise the double-blind process; any need for access should be channelled through the editors.
  • If you identify potentially identifying elements (e.g., self-identifying self-citations, acknowledgements, file metadata), please flag this in confidential comments to the editor.

Use of AI tools
RSEL expects transparency and compliance with its editorial policies. If a reviewer notices indications of undisclosed AI-tool use or potential integrity issues (e.g., incoherent text, suspicious references or citations), they should report this confidentially to the editorial team for assessment. (See the relevant policy under “Publication Ethics” where applicable.)

Assessment questions (to help form an overall judgement)

  • What is the main research question? Is it relevant and interesting?
  • How original is the topic? What does it add compared with existing work?
  • Is the paper well written and easy to follow?
  • Are the conclusions supported by the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
  • If the paper challenges the current academic consensus, is the case substantial and well supported? If not, what would be required to make it credible?
  • If tables or figures are included, do they improve understanding or are they superfluous?

The report is expected to consider at least the following aspects

  • Clarity and conceptual soundness of the argumentation and conclusions.
  • Relevance and timeliness of the literature.
  • Adequacy of the data treatment and reliability of the analysis.
  • Compliance with the journal’s editorial policies and guidelines.

Final recommendation
Please end your report with one of the following recommendations:

  • Reject
  • Revise (major changes) and resubmit
  • Revise (minor changes)
  • Accept

Tips for organising a review (suggested structure)

  1. Summarise the main research question, claims, and conclusions, and situate the work within the existing literature.
  2. Discuss the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses.
  3. List major issues that must be addressed for the manuscript to proceed (be specific).
  4. List minor issues (clarifications, style, typos).
  5. If needed, add confidential comments to the editors (e.g., ethical or anonymity concerns). Do not use this section for your overall critique. Optionally indicate whether you would be available to review a revised version.