Guidelines for Reviewers

Below you will find basic guidelines for peer-reviewing in Dynamica. Within this tool, the manuscript/content and the peer-reviews will be considered as one published document after acceptance. Therefore the following guidelines are here to help the peer-reviewers throughout their SciFree process and to support the author in publishing high-integrity work. 

Protecting the process via confidentiality until published

Keep the manuscript/content submission confidential during the process. Once the peer-reviewer (s) have accepted the manuscript/content, all peer-review comments for all versions of the manuscript/content will be published for the world to read automatically. 

Competing or Conflict of Interests:

If there are any conflicts of interest for the reviewing, please decline the suggested review of the content. This is easily done by clicking on Decline to review the suggested manuscript. 

If, after acceptance to review the manuscript/content, it is found that there is a conflict of interest, disclose this in the general summary. It is essential to show an open and honest discussion as the reviews will be published with the manuscript. 

Timing

The tool will automatically timeout your ability to review after a certain number of days, this is set by the Universities or the authors. 

However, the tool makes it easier for you to review and once you accept, you will have one week to get back to the author with comments before it times out. Moving the process along as fast as possible is essential so the authors can know what requires improvement or not. If you cannot submit a review within the allotted time, you can decline to review and toggle off peer-reviews to be sent to you until you have the time again. 

If you have already accepted to review and find that you need more time, submit a request to [e-mail], and we will help you immediately. 

Working on the peer review

Within the tool are text boxes where you can write a general overview of what you have assessed about the manuscript/content. 

Furthermore, for each manuscript section, you will find text boxes on the right handside that you can use to comment. This will help the authors to know directly where you have found interesting notions to comment on. 

Writing a Peer Review

The following helpful tips are adapted from Prof Hartmut Traunmüller, who has over the years reviewed a hundred manuscripts.

In a short paragraph, summarize the article, focusing on its most interesting or notable features and findings.

Unless the study is a research review, it should report something that is not yet in the literature or not so elaborated there. Negative results qualify if unexpected. If the study essentially repeats what has been reported before, then please provide reference(s).

If there are any logical, analytical, ethical or other flaws that would prohibit publication, then please make these sufficiently clear.

The perceived importance, degree of advance or expected impact of the reported research should not affect your evaluation unless claims to such effects are made.

Analysis or methodology may deviate from current teaching and practice, but the authors have to motivate this convincingly.

It is always welcomed to help the authors with any grammatical or spelling errors by suggesting changes within the sections you see the problematic text.

Here is a list of a few areas to consider:

• Is the Title acceptable?
• Is the Abstract rich in essential information and yet comprehensible?
• Does the Introduction (or introductory passages in subsequent sections) give the necessary background information on the relevant state of knowledge in a way that is adequate for the intended readership?
• Additional facts may be suggested to be considered, but this should not require the scope of the study to be more than marginally extended.
• Does the article pose a clear research question (or several)?
• Are reasoning, method, presentation of results, also statistical analyses, and conclusions valid and well presented? Is sufficient detail provided to allow reproducing the study? If you have noticed any deficiencies, then please mention them and suggest improvements.
• Are the claims convincing and fully supported by reasoning and/or presented data? Are they proportionate and not exaggerated? Are they discussed in the context of previous literature?
• Should any references be included or excluded?

Key Reviewer Etiquette

As a peer-reviewer of this manuscript, you should

1. Be honest and fair
2. Acknowledge any conflict of interest with reviewing the author's work
3. Be kind and thoughtful about how the author (s) can improve on their work
4. Adhere to your university's or employer's code of conduct at all times. 

To continue with the reviewing follow this link here.