Information For Reviewers

To ensure the highest standards in publication ethics, RSEL adheres to the policies and practices developed by independent organisations, such as Committee on Publication Ethics COPE.

RSEL operates on a double-blind peer-review policy. Peer review plays a major role in ensuring the quality and integrity of the research published in a journal. The process depends to a large extent on trust and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically.

Peer reviewers should

  • only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment.
  • only agree to review manuscripts if they can assess them in a timely manner (4 weeks).
  • respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process
  • not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
  • declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
  • not allow their reviews to be influenced by their suppositions about the author(s) (nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics), or by commercial considerations
  • be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments

Assessment questions

The journal is looking to the reviewers for subject knowledge, good judgement, and an honest and fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. When writing a review, keeping in mind the following questions can help you form your overall impression:

  • What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
  • How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
  • Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
  • Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
  • If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
  • If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?

The report is expected to consider the following aspects:

  1. Clarity and conceptual soundness of the argumentation and the conclusions.
  2. Relevance and timeliness of the literature.
  3. Adequacy in the treatment of the data and the reliability of the analysis.
  4. Compliance with the editorial policies and guidelines.

Final recommendation

 The review report should finish with a clear recommendation:

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

Tips for organising a review

  • Summarize the main research question, claims, and conclusions of the study. Provide context for how this research fits within the existing literature.
  • Discuss the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses.
    • Major issues must be addressed in order for the manuscript to proceed. Focus on what is essential for the current study, not the next step in the research. Put these items in a list and be as specific as possible.
    • Mention minor issues or additional things the authors should do to improve the manuscript. Typically, these will be changes that would not affect the overall conclusions.
  • If needed, add confidential comments for the editors. Raise any concerns about the manuscript that they may need to consider further, such as concerns about ethics. Do not use this section for your overall critique. Also mention whether you might be available to look at a revised version.