Instructions for reviewers

Review and ruling process

When receiving the invitation, you will have access to your Publisher's intranet, where you can download the documents by clicking on the green arrow next to the name of the article.

Accept/reject the invitation

Before accepting/reject the invitation for reviewing the article by clicking into the corresponding check box, please write the reasons of your rejected (if any) in the Comments to editor box, or any comment you want to share with the editor such as, for example, a suggestion for another reviewer, a comment related to your acceptance to review the paper, etc.

How to make your review

Please introduce the comments to authors in the Comments to author box, where you should include:

  • A general comment about the manuscript reviewed.
  • The changes that you feel should be made to the article, should it be accepted with changes.
  • The reasons why you believe the article should not be published, should it be rejected for publication.

Please consider that the comments should be written in a constructive and helpful way.

Thereafter, in the window Confidential comments to Editor, fill the brief questionnaire and write down a brief private comment to the editors.

Once you have saved the comments, choose the tab corresponding to your decision: accepted, accepted with changes or rejected for publication.

Please note that if your decision is Accepted with changes, the editors might ask you to re- review the modified version of the manuscript, if necessary, in order to make a final decision. The re-review process should be easy to do because the authors will provide a letter describing in detail the changes introduced to the modified version.

Conflicts of interest

Please inform the editors if you think a conflict of interest might exist; for example, if you currently work or have worked in the past in the same department as one or more of the authors, as well as if you have or have had any financial of professional connection with the manuscript's content. This does not necessarily mean that you won't be elegible for reviewing the article but will help the Editors to make a decision about the manuscript.


Make sure the manuscript you are invited to review matches your expertise. The editor normally knows well the work of the reviewers who are invited but in order to avoid mistakes or inaccurate reviews, please be sure you are competent to review the article. If you rejected to review the article for this (or other) reason, we will be grateful if you could suggest the name (including working center and e-mail) of a colleague you consider may review the paper properly (please do this in the Comments to editor window).


The standard deadline given for making a review is 3 weeks. Please follow as possible the deadline given to review the article in order to accomplish with the journal procedures. If you think that you may need more time to review the paper, please inform about this when receiving the invitation by introducing a comment in the Comments to editor window. The editor may ask you to recommend another reviewer or that will wait for your review a little longer.


The reviewer should keep confidentiality about the manuscript, without sharing or discussing its content with another people which are not involved with the manuscript review.

Reporting Concerns

The reviewer should communicate, if suspected, any case of fraud, plagiarism, duplicity or another ethical concern.