For Reviewers

Overview

At TSRJ, we highly value the contributions made by our peer reviewers to the academic community. Reviewers play a vital role in ensuring publication quality and advancing research within their fields of expertise.

The peer review process is a cornerstone of knowledge development across all disciplines. By reviewing, you help authors strengthen their manuscripts and gain early access to emerging work. Your efforts directly support the growth and progress of your field.

These pages provide all the guidance and resources you need to participate effectively in this important process.

Peer review is a process in which researchers (“peers”) assess the quality and validity of other researchers’ work to ensure rigor, logical soundness, and contribution to knowledge.

Peer review supports academic publishing by:

  • Evaluation — helps journals select the highest quality articles.
  • Integrity — upholds credibility of the process and scholarly record.
  • Quality — expert feedback improves manuscripts.

Types of Peer Review

  • Single-anonymized — reviewers hidden from authors.
  • Double-anonymized — both authors and reviewers anonymous.
  • Triple-anonymized — authors, reviewers, and staff anonymized.
  • Open peer review — in some TSRJ journals, reviews may be published and reviewer names disclosed by choice.
  • Post-publication peer review — discussion after publication (less common; field-dependent).

For more on peer review types, see Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts of Peer Review .

Each TSRJ journal has its own guidelines and methods. Always check the journal’s instructions before reviewing.

Transparent Peer Review

Reviewer reports may be published alongside the article, providing insight into the process and giving recognition to reviewers and editors.

Why Use Transparent Peer Review?

Visibility encourages thorough, constructive feedback and helps identify biases or inappropriate tone. This improves manuscript quality and reinforces credibility.

Peer review maintains research quality and integrity. TSRJ values reviewers’ contributions and offers recognition (e.g., discounts or complimentary access).

For new reviewers, the process can be challenging but rewarding—building skills and offering early insight into emerging research.

How to Become a Reviewer

  1. Create a journal-specific reviewer account on Tresearch:
    • Find the journal and use the “Submit Paper” link to create an account.
    • Benefits: inclusion in reviewer database; add expertise keywords; editor ratings can increase invitations.
  2. Contact the editor or editorial office:
    • Express interest, summarize expertise, and highlight suitability.
    • Benefits: verify scope fit; provide background; build a direct connection.

Once registered, editors may invite you to review. If you cannot accept, notify the editor promptly and suggest alternatives where possible.

Considerations Before Starting a Review

  • Timing: Inform the editor if you cannot meet the deadline; keep availability updated in TSRJ Track.
  • Suitability: Consider reasons not to review; consult the editor if unsure.
  • Journal-specific guidelines: Some forms include specific questions—check before starting.
  • Confidentiality: Do not share manuscripts; report concerns only to the editor.
  • Co-reviewing: Obtain prior approval to involve colleagues or trainees; acknowledge co-reviewers to the editor.

See also the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers .

Making Your Recommendation

  • Accept — ready as is (rare at first submission).
  • Minor Revision — small corrections/clarifications; may undergo brief re-review.
  • Major Revision — substantial changes needed; provide point-by-point guidance; re-review expected.
  • Reject — does not meet standards; still provide constructive feedback.

For comments on your reviewing experience or suggestions, email [email protected].

Upon successful completion of a course, participants receive a certificate of achievement.

Plain Language Summaries (PLS) make research understandable to non-specialists. When reviewing a PLS, check it: clearly communicates findings; avoids jargon or defines terms; accurately reflects the study; engages general readers; stays concise.

What are Plain Language Summaries?

Short, accessible summaries placed after the abstract. They include:

  • A plain language title (up to 50 words)
  • A non-technical summary (≤ 300 words)

Key points:

  • PLS are peer-reviewed additions to the article.
  • Written by authors; appear below the abstract.
  • Abstracts and PLS are open access and shareable.
  • A designated PLS Reviewer evaluates the PLS alongside the article.

What is a PLS Reviewer?

Non-specialists with lived experience or interest (e.g., related academics, patients, caregivers, students, policymakers, practitioners).

What Should a PLS Reviewer Look For?

  • Avoid jargon; define terms.
  • Cover the who/what/why/when/where/how.
  • Use short sentences, active voice; present numbers clearly.
  • Focus on practical outcomes; avoid statistical jargon.
  • State a clear main message and implications.

Importance of PLS Reviewers

PLS reviewers reflect the audience perspective—helping ensure clarity, accuracy, and accessibility.

Submitting a PLS Review

After registration, PLS reviewers receive a journal system account to access articles and submit feedback.

Process for PLS Reviewers

  1. Editor invites you by email—accept/decline via link.
  2. If unavailable, inform the editor to reassign.
  3. On acceptance, you’ll receive access and guidance.
  4. Submit feedback via the peer review interface (title it “Plain Language Summary Review”).
  5. Submit within seven days; request more time if needed.

Recommendations: Accept (no changes) or Minor Revision (small edits). For serious concerns, use “Comments to the Editor.”

What are Registered Reports?

A format where peer review and conditional approval occur before data collection/analysis (pre-registration), in two stages.

Stage 1: Review protocol (intro/methods/analysis). If approved, authors receive In-Principle Acceptance (IPA). Stage 2: Authors complete the study as planned; reviewers assess adherence and clarity of reporting.

How to Review Stage 1

  • Significance of the research question
  • Clarity/transparency of design
  • Variables and measurement
  • Hypotheses and testability
  • Link between theory, methods, and analyses
  • Allocation of participants/samples; observations and stopping rules
  • Inclusion/exclusion criteria
  • Controls/quality checks
  • Planned analyses; analysis code/syntax when applicable
  • Existing vs. new data

Outcomes: reject, revise, or IPA. Deviations later require editor approval; major changes need resubmission as new Stage 1.

How to Review Stage 2

  • Consistency with Stage 1 intro/rationale/hypotheses
  • Adherence to registered procedures; report of controls/quality checks
  • Effect of any deviations
  • Do results support the conclusions?
  • Are exploratory analyses justified and sound?
  • Is reporting clear, coherent, and logically structured?

Editorial decisions at Stage 2 focus on accuracy, adherence, and clarity — not on novelty or conclusiveness. Reference: Chambers, C. (2019). Nature, 573(7773), 187–189. 10.1038/d41586-019-02674-6

TSRJ’s Commitment to Ethical Peer Review

Consult the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and their Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers before beginning a review.

Your Responsibilities as a Reviewer

  • Check for conflicts of interest; report them discreetly to the editor.
  • Keep manuscripts confidential; discuss concerns only with the editor.
  • Review objectively; avoid personal/financial/intellectual bias.
  • If you identify authors in double-anonymized review, inform the editor.
  • Get approval to co-review; acknowledge contributors to the editor (Web of Science recognition supported).
  • Do not suggest self-citations unless academically justified.
  • Null results should not negatively affect quality assessments.
  • Keep your reviewer profile/affiliations up to date.

Common Ethical Issues to Watch For

  1. Duplicate submission/prior publication: alert the editor if suspected.
  2. Plagiarism/copyright concerns: report immediately.
  3. Research ethics issues: ensure disclosures, funding, and permissions are in place.

Raising concerns early helps maintain the integrity of the journal and the research record.

We appreciate our reviewers. TSRJ provides resources to support thorough, constructive reviews and acknowledges contributions.

Benefits of Reviewing

  • Contribute to your field — support dissemination of new insights.
  • Enhance skills — improve writing, analysis, communication.
  • Stay updated — early access to new research.
  • Career advancement — strengthen your profile and opportunities.

Reviewer Rewards at TSRJ

  • 20% discount on TSRJ Author Services
  • Free access to TSRJ journals for 60 days
  • Claim instructions sent after review submission; contact the office if issues arise

Some journals publish annual reviewer acknowledgments—opt out by informing the editor.

How to Get Credit for Your Reviews

Receive formal acknowledgment for your peer review contributions, and link your reviews to ORCID for additional recognition.

Need evidence for funding, promotion, jobs, or visas? Download your review record or provide your review confirmation emails.

What is ORCID?

ORCID maintains a public, verifiable record of your academic contributions. Link your ORCID to TSRJ reviews for Web of Science Reviewer Recognition, and follow ORCID’s guidance to maintain an authoritative profile.