How to conduct a review
1. Before you begin
Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:
Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.
Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work — before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.
Do you need to find out more about reviewing and the peer review process? If so, check out the free tutorials on the Elsevier Researcher Academy, especially the Certified Peer Reviewer course.
Are you familiar with our reviewer policies? If not, or if you need to refresh your memory, please take a look.
Respond to the invitation as soon as you can (even if it is to decline) — a delay in your decision slows down the review process and means more waiting for the author. If you do decline the invitation, it would be helpful if you could provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.
2. Managing your review
Confidential material
If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.
Generative AI
Reviewing a scientific paper implies responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. The critical thinking and assessment required for peer-review are outside the scope of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies, and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete or biased conclusions. These considerations, together with the principle that submitted manuscripts are to be treated as confidential documents, underpins our Generative AI policies for reviewers and editors:
Reviewers or editors should not upload the manuscript or any part of it into a Generative AI tool, as there is no guarantee of where materials are being sent, saved, or viewed, or how they may be used in the future and this may violate the authors’ confidentiality, proprietary and/or data privacy rights. It may also violate the terms of use of the Generative AI tool.
This confidentiality requirement extends to the peer review report and any other communication about the manuscript, such as the notification or decision letters, as they may also contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or the authors. For this reason, they should not be uploaded into a Generative AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability.
Generative AI should not be used to assist in the review, evaluation or decision-making process of a manuscript.
Elsevier embraces new AI-driven technologies that support reviewers and editors in the editorial process, such as those used during the screening process to conduct completeness and plagiarism checks and identify suitable reviewers. These identity-protected technologies conform to the RELX Responsible AI Principles. We continue to develop and adopt in-house or licensed technologies that can assist editors and reviewers while respecting confidentiality, proprietary and data privacy rights.
How to log in and access your review
Your review will be managed via an Elsevier submission system such as Editorial Manager. Elsevier journals use different submission systems so there is no one generic login link. To access the paper and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received which will bring you to the submission/reviewing system.
How to submit a review in Editorial Manager
How to submit a review in Editorial Manager
New peer review experience
Elsevier has been developing a new peer review experience on Editorial Manager which introduces a redesigned interface which contains all reviewer comments, author responses to these as well as editor comments together in one single place. The clear and easy process benefits reviewers, authors and editors via more timely and efficient communication. It also allows editors to make informed decisions more efficiently.
To learn how to submit a review via the new peer review experience, please visit our reviewer guide to the new peer review experience.
Structuring your peer review report
When you sit down to write the review, make sure you familiarize yourself with any journal-specific guidelines (these will be noted in the journal’s guide for authors available on each journal’s homepage).
Some of our journals employ “structured peer review for research and/or review article types” whereby you will receive an overview of prompts to make it easier for you to convey recommendations for improvement in a structured manner. These prompts address different aspects of the manuscript, such as the quality of the data analysis, reproducibility, and the overall clarity of the manuscript. You can find an overview of the prompts as follows (note that journals may also employ additional journal-specific questions).
Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data and evidence. This is why structuring your review matters.
Regardless of the journal, we invite you to familiarize yourself with the list of these prompts upon preparing your review report. Below we list the items you need to take into account upon preparing your review report for the most common article types.
Evaluation of original research article type
Title
Evaluate whether the title accurately and sufficiently describes the content. You may want to factor in discoverability/searchability of the title. Note that for certain research types (e.g., randomized controlled trials), the study type should be indicated in the title.
Abstract
Assess whether the abstract accurately reflects all essential aspects of the study, including all major results and limitations.
Introduction
The background and literature section should be up-to-date and appropriate for the topic. The introduction should clearly explain the scientific background and rationale of the study.
Review whether the (primary and secondary) objectives are clearly stated at the end of the introduction.
Methods
The study methods, which include the theory, applicability, and modeling, should be described in sufficient detail to enable replication and reproducibility. If applicable, check whether the experimental design (e.g., RCT, case-control, cohort, or cross-sectional) is identified. The patient population should be described, including a detailed sample size estimation. There should also be a literature-backed explanation for the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).
Statistical analyses such as controls, sampling mechanisms, and statistical reporting (e.g., p-values, CIs, effect sizes, etc.) should be appropriately described.
Results
Verify whether the presentation of the results, including the number of tables and figures, are appropriate to best visualize the findings of the study.
If the study contains statistical analyses, examine whether additional sub-analyses or statistical measures are needed such as reporting of CIs, effect sizes, and/or sensitivity analyses.
Discussion
The interpretation of the results and study conclusions should be supported by the data and study design.
Assess whether the authors have clearly emphasized the limitations of their study, including the theory, methods, and argument.
References
Scrutinize whether the references used in this study are the most up-to-date and relevant for the topic at hand.
Language quality
Evaluate whether the manuscript would benefit from professional language editing or improvements in grammar, clarity, or readability. Provide brief suggestions where appropriate.
Overall
Overall, state if this paper presents research that is novel or important [in some other aspect e.g., exhibits reproducibility] for the journal or for the field. Note if the research contributes to the educational goals of the journal.
While all papers undergo integrity checks, please assess and comment if the authors need to address any ethical/integrity concerns.
Evaluating review article type
Overall relevance
Evaluate whether the authors clearly explain the rationale for writing a review article in this field. Provide specific suggestions on how the authors could better justify the need and relevance of this review.
Historical development and insights
Assess whether the review provides a comprehensive overview of the historical development of the field while also offering insights into its future directions. Identify important historical developments or potential future trends that should be added or emphasized more strongly.
References
Evaluate whether the authors adequately discuss the most relevant and recent advances in the field, including coverage of all or most relevant research groups. Provide recommendations for improving the reference list, including suggestions for key topics, foundational studies, or recent publications that should be incorporated.
Methods and reproducibility
Assess whether the review is reported with sufficient methodological detail to allow replicability or reproducibility (e.g., clear search strategies, inclusion/exclusion criteria, risk-of-bias assessments, and summary methods). Provide specific suggestions on how the authors could improve the transparency and reproducibility of their review process.
Statistical analyses
Evaluate whether any statistical methods used (e.g., meta-analysis, meta-regression) are appropriate and clearly described, including reporting of relevant metrics such as p-values and 95% confidence intervals. Indicate clearly whether the review would benefit from additional peer review by a statistician, and provide suggestions for improving the statistical analyses, controls, sampling approach, or reporting.
Essential reporting requirements
Assess the overall structure, flow, and clarity of the manuscript. Suggest improvements such as adding or reorganizing subheadings, shortening or clarifying text, moving content between sections, or aligning the manuscript more closely with reporting standards (e.g., PRISMA guidelines).
Language quality
Evaluate whether the manuscript would benefit from professional language editing or improvements in grammar, clarity, or readability. Provide brief suggestions where appropriate.
Sex and gender reporting
Although it might sound late, given that the research has already been concluded and the data analyzed, the peer review process can still play an important role in ensuring effective, transparent and complete sex and gender reporting.
Assess manuscripts for inclusion of sex-disaggregated data and gender analysis. It could well be that the study was not designed to analyze sex and/or gender. Nevertheless, we recommend referees to consider if sex and gender are relevant to the topic of the study, and whether the study follows relevant guidelines, wherever applicable.
As a general principle, the SAGER guidelines recommend careful use of the words “sex” and “gender” in order to avoid confusing both terms. The use of common definitions will improve the ability to conduct meta-analyses of published and archived data. The term “sex” should be used as a classification of male or female based on biological distinction to the extent that this is possible to confirm. Per Heidari et al.: "Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours and identities of female, male and gender-diverse people . It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they behave and interact and the distribution of power and resources in society."
Please check if authors have underlined in the methods section whether the sex of participants was defined based on self-report or assigned following external or internal examination of body characteristics, or through genetic testing or other means. In studies of animals, the term “sex” should be used. In cell biological, molecular biological or biochemical experiments, the origin and sex chromosome constitutions of cells or tissue cultures should be stated. If unknown, the reasons should be stated. In other disciplines, such as the testing of devices or technology, authors should explain whether it will be applied or used by all genders and if it has been tested with a user’s gender in mind. Please check whether the authors have done due diligence and reported any previous studies in the introductions that reveal or refute potential sex or gender differences, and the rationale why they have or have not examined these aspects in their study.
If the study included only one sex/gender, ensure this has been justified. If the study included more than one sex/gender, ensure data are reported for all the options that were recorded and that data disaggregated by sex/gender are reported in full, in the main text or in the appendix or supplementary materials. It is important to assess whether the methodology is appropriate to capture possible sex and gender aspects. As a peer reviewer you may request sub-group analysis if deemed necessary and check if all data are provided disaggregated by sex, as a minimum.
Finally, please also pay attention to whether authors have clearly justified in the discussion section any limitation of their study due to lack of any sex- and gender-based analysis and/or the implications on the generalizability and interpretation of their findings in light of that. It could be that the study was not designed to analyze sex and/or gender, nevertheless, it is important to consider if sex and gender are relevant to the topic of the study, and whether the study follows relevant guidelines, wherever applicable.
Research data and visualizations
Once you are satisfied that the methodology is sufficiently robust, examine any data in the form of figures, tables, or images. Authors may add research data, including data visualizations, to their submission to enable readers to interact and engage more closely with their research after publication. Please be aware that links to data might therefore be present in the submission files. These items should also receive your attention during the peer review process. Manuscripts may also contain database identifiers or accession numbers (e.g., genes) in relation to our database linking program.
Critical issues in research data, which are considered to be major flaws can be related to insufficient data points, statistically non-significant variations and unclear data tables.
NB for certain types of visualization, preview tools are available, allowing you to inspect how files will display on ScienceDirect if the manuscript is accepted. For other data visualizations, there may be other ways of inspecting the files.
Ethical considerations
Experiments including patient or animal data should properly be documented. Most journals require ethical approval by the author’s host organization. Please check journal-specific guidelines for such cases (available from the journal’s homepage, accessible via the journal catalogue.
Overview
If you don’t spot any major flaws, take a break from the manuscript, giving you time to think. Consider the article from your own perspective. When you sit down to write the review, again make sure you familiarize yourself with any journal-specific guidelines (these will be noted in the journal’s guide for authors).
3. Finalizing your review
Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. It will also aid the author and allow them to improve their manuscript. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any ad hominem remarks or personal details including your name (unless the journal for which you are invited to review employs "identity transparency").
Best practice
The journal for which you are reviewing might have a specific format (e.g., questionnaire) or other instructions for how to structure your feedback. Below are some general tips on what to include/consider if no other guidelines apply.
DO
Summarize the article in a short paragraph. This shows the editor you have read and understood the research.
Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting, has a sufficient impact and adds to the knowledge base.
Ideally, when commenting, do so using short, clearly-defined paragraphs and make it easy for the editor and author to see what section you’re referring to.
Assess whether the article conforms to the journal-specific instructions (e.g., the guide for authors).
Give specific comments and suggestions — e.g., Does the title accurately reflect the content? Is the abstract complete and stand-alone?
Check the graphical abstracts and/or highlights.
Keep your comments strictly factual and don’t speculate on the motives of the author(s).
Carefully review the methodology, statistical errors, results, conclusion/discussion, and references.
Consider feedback on the presentation of data in the article, the sustainability and reproducibility of any methodology, the analysis of any data, and whether the conclusions are supported by the data.
Raise your suspicions with the editor if you suspect plagiarism or research falsification or have other ethical concerns, providing as much detail as possible. Visit Elsevier’s ethics page or consult the COPE guidelines
for more information.
Be aware of potential bias in your review. Unconscious bias can lead us all to make questionable decisions that negatively impact the academic publishing process.
DON’T
Feel the need to comment on the spelling, grammar or layout of the article. If the research is sound, but let down by poor language, then recommend to the editor that the author(s) have their paper language edited.
Make ad-hominem comments.
Dismiss alternative viewpoints or theories that might conflict with your own opinions on a topic; when reviewing, maintain an open perspective.
Share the review or information about the review with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved. According to COPE guidelines, reviewers must treat any manuscripts they are asked to review as confidential documents. This applies both during and after the publication process unless the journal publishes peer review comments.
Suggest that the author include citations to your (or your associates’) work unless for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing citation counts or enhancing the visibility of your work (or that of your associates).
Your recommendation
When you submit your review, you are asked to suggest a decision recommendation type. This is to help editors to make a decision if they need supporting argument from reviewers but please note the decision is at the sole discretion of the editor. You will be presented with the below decision recommendation types:
Reject (explain your reasoning in your report)
Accept without revision
Revise — either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether you would be happy to review the revised article); if you are recommending a revision, you must expect and agree with the follow up invitation upon authors’ responses to your arguments and comments supporting your decision recommendation.
Bear in mind that there will be the opportunity to direct separate comments to both the editor and author(s). Once you are ready to submit your report, follow the instructions in the email or visit our support center if you encounter any difficulties.
The final decision
The editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. Elsevier plays no part in this decision. The editor will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision. The submission system provides reviewers with a notification of the final decision, if the journal has opted in to this functionality.
4. After your review
Once you have delivered your review, you might want to make use of Elsevier’s Reviewer Hub to ensure that you receive credit for your work. The platform provides a private profile page, certificates as well as editor recognition.
Do not forget that, even after finalizing your review, you must treat the article and any linked files or data as confidential documents. This means you must not share them or information about the review with anyone without prior authorization from the editor.
Finally, we take the opportunity to thank you sincerely on behalf of the journal, editors and author(s) for the time you have taken to give your valuable input to the article.
