跳转到主内容

非常抱歉,我们不完全支持您的浏览器。如果您可以选择,请升级到较新版本或使用 Mozilla Firefox、Microsoft Edge、Google Chrome 或 Safari 14 或更高版本。如果您无法进行此操作且需要支持,请将您的反馈发送给我们。

全新设计的官网为您带来全新体验,期待您的反馈(在新的选项卡/窗口中打开)

Elsevier
通过我们出版

Peer review checklist

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(在新的选项卡/窗口中打开) 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. Read further to find out more about this important subject and how to identify and tackle bias.

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(在新的选项卡/窗口中打开), 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 uses open peer review.

  • Suggest that the author includes 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).