For Reviewers
• Reviewer Guides
1. Peer Review and the Editorial Procedure
2. Reviewers’ Profiles and Responsibilities
3. Reviewers’ Benefits
4. Reviewer Board
5. Volunteer Reviewers
6. General Guidelines for AUCTORES Reviewer Recruiting Program
7. General Guidelines for Reviewers Reviewer Guides
1. Peer Review and the Editorial Procedure Peer review is a vital component of the publication process and is central to AUCTORES’s commitment to maintaining the highest scholarly standards. All manuscripts submitted to our journals undergo a rigorous and thorough peer review conducted by qualified experts. Upon submission, the Managing Editor performs an initial technical pre-check to assess suitability. A designated Academic Editor is then notified and invited to conduct an editorial pre- check and recommend appropriate reviewers. At this stage, the Academic Editor may choose to proceed with peer review, reject the manuscript, or request revisions prior to peer review. If the manuscript proceeds, the Editorial Office coordinates the peer-review process with independent experts and obtains at least two reviewer reports for each submission. Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts adequately—potentially involving a second round of peer review—before a final decision is made. The final decision is rendered by an Academic Editor, typically the Editor-in-Chief, an Editorial Board Member, or the Guest Editor of a Special Issue. Accepted manuscripts then undergo internal copyediting and English editing. More information about the editorial process is available here, and a reviewer brochure can be accessed here.
2. Reviewers’ Profiles and Responsibilities Reviewers play a crucial role in safeguarding the integrity of the scholarly record. They are expected to evaluate manuscripts promptly, transparently, and ethically in accordance with COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Reviewer Eligibility Criteria Reviewers should meet the following requirements:
• Have no conflicts of interest with any of the authors;
• Not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors;
• Not have co-authored publications with the authors within the past three years;
• Hold a PhD or equivalent qualification;
• Possess relevant expertise and a demonstrable publication record in the subject area of the manuscript (verifiable through Scopus, ORCID, etc.);
• Be established scholars in the field covered by the submitted work;
• Hold a recognized academic or research affiliation.
Reviewer Responsibilities
To ensure a rigorous and meaningful peer-review process, reviewers are expected to:
• Have the appropriate subject-matter expertise to assess the scientific quality of the manuscript;
• Provide clear, constructive, high-quality review reports and remain responsive throughout the review process;
• Uphold the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and ethical conduct.
3. Reviewers’ Benefits Reviewing is an essential but often underrecognized contribution to the scholarly community. AUCTORES is committed to acknowledging and rewarding the valuable efforts of its reviewers.
Benefits of Reviewing for AUCTORES Journals
• APC Discount Voucher: Reviewers may receive a discount voucher for each completed review, which can be applied to the article processing charge (APC) of a future submission to any AUCTORES journal. Vouchers are linked to the reviewer’s email address and may be applied during submission or any time before acceptance. They cannot be used after an invoice has been issued. If a manuscript is rejected, the voucher may be used for a future submission. Reviewer vouchers may be combined only with IOAP and affiliated society discounts.
• Editing Services: Voucher codes may also be used to purchase professional English editing through Author Services.
• Reviewer Certificate: Reviewers receive a personalized certificate recognizing their service.
• Award Eligibility: Reviewers are considered for AUCTORES’s Outstanding Reviewer Awards.
• Annual Acknowledgment: Reviewers are included in the journal’s annual acknowledgment section when more than 50 reviewers have contributed in the previous year.
• Reviewer Board Membership: Exceptional reviewers may be invited to join the Reviewer Board, subject to approval by the Editor-in-Chief.
• Recognition on Web of Science: Reviewers may create a profile on the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service, where eligible reviews are automatically recorded. Profiles can also be linked to ORCID.
4. Reviewer Board The Reviewer Board (RB) is composed of experienced researchers who actively support AUCTORES journals by providing high-quality, rigorous, and transparent peer-review reports within their areas of expertise. Members are appointed for an initial one-year term, which may be renewed or concluded thereafter. RB membership carries the same responsibilities and benefits as those of regular reviewers, along with the following additional expectations and privileges:
• Review Commitment: RB Members must review at least six manuscripts per year. If unable to accept a review invitation, members are expected to recommend suitable alternative reviewers who meet the eligibility criteria outlined in Section 2.
• Recognition: RB Members receive an official RB certificate.
• Visibility: RB Members are publicly listed on the journal’s website.
5. Volunteer Reviewers AUCTORES journals actively welcome volunteers who are interested in reviewing manuscripts. Both Reviewer Board Members and Volunteer Reviewers may offer to review submissions for one or more AUCTORES journals. To join the program, applicants must meet the criteria outlined in Section 2, “Reviewers’
Profiles and Responsibilities.”
To apply, please submit your information here. The Editorial Office of the selected journal will be notified, and your application will undergo an internal review to confirm that your expertise aligns with the journal’s scope and that no ethical concerns are present. If you successfully pass this evaluation, your application will be approved. Highly active and dedicated Volunteer Reviewers may be considered for promotion to Reviewer Board Members, subject to approval by the Editor-in-Chief.
6. General Guidelines for AUCTORES Reviewer Recruiting Program To apply to review a manuscript as a Reviewer Board Member or Volunteer Reviewer, please visit the “Recruiting Reviewers” section in our Submission System (SuSy) (https://susy.AUCTORES.com/reviewer/list/recruiting_reviewers_manuscripts), located under the “Reviewers Menu” on the left-hand side. This section displays all manuscripts available for review*. You may filter the list by journal or by keywords. If you find a manuscript you wish to review, simply click “Apply.” The Editorial Office of the corresponding journal will be notified, and our internal staff will review your academic background and check for any potential conflicts of interest. If the evaluation is successful, your application to review the manuscript will be approved. * Please note that you can only view and apply to review manuscripts in journals for which you are already registered as a Reviewer Board Member or Volunteer Reviewer.
7. General Guidelines for Reviewers
7.1. Invitation to Review
Manuscripts submitted to AUCTORES journals are evaluated by at least two experts—Volunteer Reviewers, Reviewer Board Members, or reviewers recommended by the Academic Editor during the preliminary check. Reviewers are asked to assess the quality of the manuscript and recommend whether it should be accepted, revised, or rejected. Invited reviewers are asked to:
• Accept or decline review invitations as soon as possible, based on the title and abstract;
• Suggest alternative qualified reviewers if they decline the invitation;
• Request an extension promptly if additional time is needed to prepare a thorough report.
7.2. Potential Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and contact the Editorial Office if unsure. Conflicts may include, but are not limited to:
• Employment at the same institution as an author;
• Co-authorship, collaboration, joint funding, or other academic ties with an author within the past three years;
• Close personal relationships, rivalry, or hostility toward an author;
• Any financial interest that may be affected by the manuscript’s publication;
• Non-financial conflicts (political, personal, ideological, religious, academic, intellectual, commercial, etc.). Reviewers should declare any situation that could reasonably be perceived as bias. Reviewing a manuscript previously reviewed for another journal is not considered a conflict of interest. Reviewers may inform the Editorial Office whether the manuscript has improved or changed. Reviewers are encouraged to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
7.3. Declaration of Confidentiality
AUCTORES journals operate single- or double-blind peer review. Until publication, reviewers must treat the manuscript—including the abstract—as strictly confidential and avoid revealing their identity in comments or file metadata. If a reviewer wishes to involve a colleague in the review process, they must first notify the Editorial Office. The colleague must also meet the reviewer eligibility criteria. AUCTORES offers an open peer review option: authors may choose to publish review reports and reviewers may choose to sign them. This occurs only upon publication and only with the reviewer’s consent. In all other cases, review reports remain confidential. 7.4. Review Reports
Review reports must be written in English. Reviewers should:
• Read the entire manuscript and supplementary materials, paying close attention to data, figures, tables, and methods.
• Evaluate both the overall study and specific components.
• Provide detailed comments to help authors address issues effectively.
• Avoid recommending unnecessary citations—whether self-citations, honorary citations, or citations to increase a journal’s metrics.
• Maintain a professional, constructive, and neutral tone.
• Not use GenAI/LLM tools to generate or analyze review content. Limited use for grammar or formatting is acceptable but must be disclosed. Uploading manuscripts or any part of them into such tools is strictly prohibited. AUCTORES journals adhere to established standards (e.g., ICMJE, CONSORT, TOP, PRISMA, ARRIVE). Reviewers familiar with these guidelines should highlight any concerns. Additional resources for reviewers:
1. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
2. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals (Hames, 2007)
3. ANU’s guide on writing a journal article review
4. “How to write a peer review for an academic journal” by T. Golash-Boza
Review reports should include:
1. A brief summary (one short paragraph) describing the study’s aims, contributions, and strengths.
2. General comments on the scientific content:
o Articles: weaknesses, methodological concerns, missing controls, etc.
o Reviews: completeness, relevance, identified gaps, appropriateness of references, etc.
3. Specific comments with line numbers or figure/table references addressing inaccuracies or unclear sections (content-focused rather than language-focused). Guiding questions for research article reviews include:
• Is the manuscript clear and well structured?
• Are references relevant and sufficiently recent?
• Is the study scientifically sound and well designed?
• Are methods described clearly enough for replication?
• Do figures/tables effectively present the data?
• Are conclusions supported by the evidence?
• Are ethics and data availability statements appropriate? Guiding questions for review article evaluations include:
• Is the review comprehensive and relevant?
• Is there a similar recent review?
• Are references appropriate and up to date?
• Are arguments coherent and well supported?
• Are figures/tables clear and informative? Review reports are rated by an Academic Editor, and ratings may influence reviewer promotions (e.g., Reviewer Board eligibility). 7.5. Rating Manuscripts Reviewers should rate the manuscript based on:
• Novelty – originality and advancement of knowledge;
• Scope – alignment with the journal's aims and scope;
• Significance – importance, interpretation, and justification of results;
• Quality – clarity of writing, effectiveness of data presentation;
• Scientific Soundness – rigor, reproducibility, and appropriateness of methods;
• Interest to Readers – relevance and potential readership;
• Overall Merit – overall contribution and value to the field;
• English Level – clarity and comprehensibility. If the manuscript is more suitable for another AUCTORES journal, reviewers may recommend transfer. Authors may request that existing review reports be transferred. Reviewers must also assess the manuscript’s adherence to ethical standards, including originality, proper citation, and compliance with research ethics. Any concerns about misconduct must be reported immediately. 7.6. Overall Recommendation Reviewers should provide one of the following recommendations:
• Accept in Present Form – no further changes required.
• Accept after Minor Revision – acceptance after small revisions; the authors have five days.
• Reconsider after Major Revision – acceptance dependent on substantial revisions; authors may be required to submit a point-by-point response. Up to two rounds of major revision are permitted, with resubmission expected within ten days.
• Reject – the manuscript contains serious flaws or lacks original contribution and should not be resubmitted.
Recommendations are visible only to editors, not to authors, and must always be well justified. 7.7. Guidelines for Reviewers of Registered Reports
Registered Reports undergo a two-stage review:
Stage 1: Reviewers assess study proposals before data collection. They should evaluate:
1. Importance and soundness of the hypotheses;
2. Suitability and feasibility of methods;
3. Adequacy of methodological detail for replication;
4. Presence of appropriate outcome-neutral tests (controls, quality checks). Manuscripts accepted at Stage 1 may be published immediately or after completing Stage 2. Stage 2: Reviewers evaluate the completed study and determine:
1. Whether data meet the approved outcome-neutral criteria;
2. Whether hypotheses match those approved in Stage 1;
3. Whether procedures were followed as registered (or deviations justified);
4. Whether any new analyses are sound and relevant;
5. Whether conclusions are justified by the data.
7.8. Depositing Review Activities to ORCID
AUCTORES allows reviewers to deposit their review activity into their ORCID profile. Reviewers must connect their ORCID account to their SuSy account. Once linked, reviewers can manually deposit review records, which will then appear on their ORCID profile.