Being invited to review a manuscript.

  • Reviewers are invited via email and asked to submit their reviewer reports to our online editorial system, Editorial Manager. Please accept or decline this invitation as quickly as possible to prevent delays for authors, so the editors will know if they need to invite alternative reviewers. Any manuscript sent for peer review is a confidential document and should remain so until it is formally published.
  • We ask reviewers to return their reports within 14 days of accepting the invitation to help support timely decisions for authors. If reviewers encounter or foresee any problems meeting the deadline for a report, they should send an email detailed at

Points to consider in your review.

Reviewers should consider the following points, which are listed in the box and elaborated on in more detail below, and indicate whether they consider any required revisions.

Summary of some of the questions to consider when peer reviewing:

  1. Are the research questions valid?
  2. Is the sample size sufficient?
  3. Is there necessary ethical approval and/or consent and was the research ethical?
  4. Are the methods and study design appropriate for answering the research question?
  5. Do the experiments have appropriate controls?
  6. Is the reporting of the methods, including any equipment and materials, sufficiently detailed that the research might be reproduced?
  7. Are any statistical tests used appropriately and correctly reported?
  8. Are the figures and tables clear and do they accurately represent the results?
  9. Has previous research by the authors and others been discussed and have those results been compared to the current results?
  10. Do the results support the conclusions?
  11. Are there any inappropriate citations, for example, not supporting the claim being made or too many citations to the authors’ own articles?
  12. Are the limitations of the research acknowledged?
  13. Is the abstract an accurate summary of the research and results, without spin?
  14. Is the language clear and understandable?
  • Please note that these points are intended as a guide. If there are points you can or cannot address, please let the editors know. These points are also not meant to restrict your review in any way if you want to comment on other aspects. Each reviewer brings different and unique perspectives to the decision making process for editors, and we appreciate all insights you can provide. If you have any questions about the reviewing for Research Involvement and Engagement, please contact us using the journal mail at
  • We encourage reviewers to focus their reports on objectively critiquing the scientific aspects of the submission, including the soundness of the methodology and whether the conclusions can be supported by the results. Comments may also be given on novelty and the potential impact of the work. At the end of their review, we ask reviewers to recommend one of the following actions: 
  • Accepted
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject
  • Unable to Review 


Conflicts of interest

Reviewers should decline to review a submission when they:

  • Have a financial interest in the subject of the work.
  • Have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors.
  • Feel unable to be objective.