Editors & Reviewers
Reviewer Guidelines
Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing. These guidelines set out the responsibilities, standards, and procedures expected of all reviewers who assess manuscripts submitted to NovaVel journals. Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the quality and integrity of the scientific record.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Accepting an invitation to review is a commitment to the scientific community. Reviewers are expected to provide an honest, thorough, and constructive assessment that helps authors improve their work and assists editors in making well-informed publication decisions.
Honest and Objective Assessment
Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively and on their scientific merit alone. Personal criticism of the authors is not appropriate. Opinions must be expressed clearly and supported by evidence from the manuscript or the wider literature.
Completeness of Review
A review should address all major aspects of the manuscript: the research question, methodology, data analysis, interpretation of results, and the quality of the discussion and conclusions. Superficial reviews that comment only on presentation are not acceptable.
Constructive Feedback
Reviewers should provide specific, actionable feedback that enables authors to understand what revisions are required and why. Vague or dismissive comments do not serve authors or the editorial process. Where rejection is recommended, the reasons must be clearly articulated.
Identification of Ethical Concerns
Reviewers who identify potential ethical issues — including suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or inadequate ethical approvals — must bring these to the attention of the handling editor promptly, rather than simply recommending rejection.
Timeliness
Reviewers must complete their assessment within the agreed deadline. If a reviewer anticipates that they will be unable to meet the deadline, they must inform the editor as early as possible so that an extension can be arranged or an alternative reviewer sought.
Declining When Unqualified
Reviewers should only accept invitations for manuscripts that fall within their area of expertise. If, after accepting, a reviewer realises that the manuscript is outside their competence, they should inform the editor immediately rather than submitting an inadequate review.
Review Criteria and Standards
Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts against the following criteria. Not all criteria will carry equal weight for every manuscript type; reviewers should exercise judgement about which are most relevant to the work under review.
Originality and Novelty
Does the manuscript make a genuine and significant contribution to the field? Is the work clearly differentiated from previously published research? Reviewers should identify any prior work that the authors have failed to cite or acknowledge.
Scientific Rigour
Is the research question clearly stated and well-motivated? Are the study design, methodology, and statistical analysis appropriate and adequately described? Are the results reproducible based on the information provided?
Validity of Conclusions
Are the conclusions supported by the data and analysis presented? Reviewers should flag any overstatement of findings, unsupported claims, or conclusions that go beyond what the evidence permits.
Ethical Compliance
Has the research been conducted in accordance with applicable ethical standards? Are the necessary ethics approvals, informed consent statements, and trial registrations present and appropriate? Reviewers should flag any apparent deficiencies.
Clarity and Presentation
Is the manuscript clearly written, logically structured, and of an appropriate length? Are figures, tables, and supplementary materials well-prepared and informative? Reviewers may comment on language quality but should not reject a manuscript on language grounds alone.
References and Scholarship
Is the manuscript appropriately grounded in the existing literature? Are citations accurate and relevant? Reviewers should note any significant omissions or inaccuracies in the reference list, but must not request citations to their own work without scientific justification.
Confidentiality and Ethical Obligations
The peer review process depends on the trust of all parties. Reviewers accept significant ethical obligations when they agree to assess a manuscript.
Manuscript Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose the content, data, findings, or existence of a manuscript with any third party without the explicit permission of the handling editor. This obligation continues after the review is submitted.
No Misuse of Privileged Information
Reviewers must not use information obtained during the review process for their own research, to gain competitive advantage, or for any purpose other than the review itself. Any ideas, data, or methods encountered in a manuscript remain the intellectual property of the authors.
Reviewer Anonymity
NovaVel operates double-anonymous peer review as its default model. Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors of a manuscript, and must not take any action that would reveal their own identity to the authors, unless they have explicitly consented to open review.
No Unauthorised Delegation
Reviewers must not delegate the review to a colleague, student, or assistant without the prior approval of the handling editor. If a reviewer wishes to involve a colleague in the review, they must disclose this to the editor before proceeding. The invited reviewer remains responsible for the quality and integrity of the final report.
Use of AI Tools
Reviewers must not use generative AI or AI-assisted tools to produce, substantially draft, or paraphrase their review report. The intellectual substance of the review must be the reviewer's own. AI tools must not be used to process or analyse the manuscript content, as this would constitute an unauthorised disclosure of confidential information.
How to Submit a Review
All reviews for NovaVel journals are submitted through the journal's editorial management system. The following guidance applies to the preparation and submission of review reports.
Access the Manuscript
Reviewers receive an invitation email containing a secure link to the editorial management system. Log in using your registered credentials and navigate to the manuscript assigned to you. Download the full manuscript and any supplementary files before beginning your assessment.
Read the Manuscript Thoroughly
Read the manuscript in full before beginning to write your review. A first reading to understand the overall argument and structure, followed by a more detailed reading with notes, will produce a more thorough and coherent review than writing comments as you read for the first time.
Prepare Your Report
Structure your report clearly. Begin with a brief summary of the manuscript's aims and main findings (2–3 sentences), followed by your major concerns, then your minor concerns, and finally any specific comments on individual sections, figures, or tables. Number your comments to make it easy for authors to respond to each point.
Complete the Review Form
In the editorial management system, complete all required fields in the review form, including your overall recommendation. You may also include confidential comments to the editor that will not be shared with the authors — use this section to raise any ethical concerns or to provide context for your recommendation.
Submit Before the Deadline
Submit your completed review through the editorial management system before the agreed deadline. If you require an extension, contact the handling editor through the system before the deadline expires. Do not submit an incomplete review simply to meet the deadline.
Timeline Expectations
NovaVel is committed to providing authors with timely editorial decisions. Reviewers play a central role in meeting these targets.
Invitation Response
Within 3 business daysReviewers are asked to accept or decline the invitation within three business days of receipt. A prompt response — whether accepting or declining — allows the editor to proceed without delay.
Review Submission
21–28 days from acceptanceThe standard review period is 21 to 28 days from the date of acceptance. Reviewers who require additional time should contact the editor before the deadline to request an extension.
Revised Manuscript Review
14–21 days from invitationWhen asked to assess a revised manuscript, reviewers are expected to respond within 14 to 21 days. Revised manuscript reviews are generally less time-intensive than initial reviews, as the scope is limited to the changes made by the authors.
Extension Requests
Before the deadlineExtension requests must be submitted before the original deadline expires. Requests made after the deadline may not be accommodated. Reviewers who are unable to complete a review should decline promptly so that an alternative reviewer can be identified.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest before accepting a review invitation. A conflict of interest is any circumstance that could reasonably be perceived as compromising the objectivity of the review.
Examples of conflicts that must be disclosed
- A personal or professional relationship with any of the authors, including current or recent collaboration (within the preceding three years)
- Employment at, or affiliation with, the same institution as any of the authors
- A financial interest in the outcome of the review, including equity, consultancy, or grant relationships with the authors' institution or sponsor
- A known competitive relationship with the authors that could bias the assessment
- Prior knowledge of the manuscript through a preprint, conference presentation, or other disclosure
- Any other circumstance that the reviewer believes could compromise, or be perceived to compromise, their objectivity
If a conflict of interest is identified after the review has been accepted, the reviewer must inform the handling editor immediately. The editor will determine whether the reviewer should continue or be replaced.
Professional Conduct
Peer review is a professional service to the scholarly community. The following standards of conduct are expected of all reviewers.
Respectful Tone
Review reports must be written in a professional and respectful tone. Critical comments should address the work, not the authors. Dismissive, sarcastic, or personally critical language is not acceptable and will be returned to the reviewer for revision before being shared with authors.
No Inappropriate Citation Requests
Reviewers must not request that authors add citations to the reviewer's own work unless there is a clear and specific scientific justification. Citation manipulation is a form of research misconduct and will be reported to the editor.
No Undue Delay
Reviewers must not deliberately delay the review of a manuscript to gain a competitive advantage. If a reviewer is unable to complete a review within the agreed timeframe for any reason, they must inform the editor promptly.
Reporting Concerns
Reviewers who become aware of suspected research misconduct, duplicate submission, or other ethical violations during the review process must report their concerns to the handling editor. Reviewers should not attempt to investigate such matters independently.
Continuing Development
Reviewers are encouraged to develop their peer review skills through training resources provided by COPE, Publons, and other professional bodies. NovaVel values reviewers who engage with best practice in peer review and welcomes feedback on the review process.
COPE Guidelines and Further Resources
NovaVel follows the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in all matters relating to peer review. Reviewers are encouraged to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers when questions arise that are not addressed in these guidelines. Where a situation requires further guidance, reviewers should contact the handling editor.