Reviewer Guidelines

Before you accept

Is it in your area? Decline if the subject is outside your expertise — and say who might be better placed.
Do you have a conflict? Decline if you have collaborated with the authors recently, work at the same institution, or have a competing interest.
Do you have time? Decline promptly rather than delay the authors. A fast "no" is more helpful than a slow "yes".

What to assess

Originality	Does the work add something that is not already known?
Method	Is the design appropriate, and described in enough detail to be repeated?
Evidence	Do the data support the conclusions drawn from them?
Clarity	Is the argument followable? Are figures and tables readable and necessary?
Literature	Is relevant prior work cited and fairly represented?
Ethics	Any sign of plagiarism, data problems, or missing ethics approval?

Writing the review

Be specific. "The sample size is not justified" helps; "the methods are weak" does not.
Number your points and separate major concerns from minor ones. Authors respond point by point.
Criticise the work, not the author. Keep the tone professional even when recommending rejection.
Explain your recommendation so the editor can weigh it.
Do not demand citations to your own work unless it is genuinely necessary.
Confidential notes for the editor go in the separate editor field, not in the comments to the author.

Confidentiality

A manuscript under review is a confidential document. Do not share it, discuss it, or use any part of its findings before publication. Do not contact the authors directly. If you want a colleague or student to help with the review, ask the editor first and name them.

Your recommendation

Recommend accept, minor revision, major revision or reject. Reviewers advise; the editor makes the final decision, and may decide differently when reviewers disagree.

Timing

We ask for reviews within [e.g. 3 weeks] of accepting the invitation. Tell us as soon as you can if you need longer.