FAQs about review

Please contact the journal editor ([email protected]), they will ensure the Editor is invite you as a reviewer.

Yes. ‘For peer reviewers’ section supports researchers in becoming more effective peer reviewers. This section aims to give clear practical advice to researchers to improve the quality of the reviews they provide, as well as introduce the key principles to those who are newer to the review process.

Editors do not expect reviewers to be an expert on everything, and there are multiple reviewers involved in each submission. However, please let the editor know about any aspects you cannot cover, and mention in your report any parts of the work you are unable to verify.

Yes – Please contact the journal editor ([email protected]). They can set a longer deadline in the system, with the Editor’s approval.

Editors will usually invite the original reviewers to look again at a revised manuscript. However, if an original reviewer is unavailable, or if expertise was missing in the first round of review, additional reviewers may be invited. You can seek clarification from the editor if you are unsure.

Yes, we welcome alternative reviewer recommendations from reviewers, at the Editor’s discretion. Please simply include your suggestions in your reply to the invitation to review, so that the Editor can consider your suggestions, and we thank you for your support.

No, you should treat the invitation as confidential. Instead, please recommend the colleague to the journal editor by replying to your invitation to review.

Double-anonymous review is when the identity of the reviewers and the authors aren’t disclosed.

The rewards and recognition offered vary depending on the journal, and may include published thank-you lists. We are very grateful for the work of reviewers, and we continually update our rewards, as well as seeking feedback on this via our reviewer survey.

Please contact the Journals Helpdesk ([email protected]) they will remove your details in compliance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Please contact the journal editor ([email protected]) who will see that your details are removed in compliance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). We thank you for reviewing and hope you were able to enjoy the benefits of peer review for your career.

To safeguard the confidentiality of those papers submitted to our journals, we do not send reviewers copies of complete manuscripts prior to their agreeing to review the paper in question.

We understand that this can cause some frustration for reviewers, particularly given that they must decide whether to review this manuscript based upon an abstract alone, but we hold a duty to authors to safeguard their research whilst it is under review.

Get in touch with the editor to explain the situation, as you may need to withdraw if you cannot remain impartial. In general, you shouldn’t review a manuscript where past or present work or personal relationships could affect your review.

If for any reason you are worried that you will have difficulty remaining impartial (whether positive or negative), you almost certainly have a conflict of interest, and you should withdraw. If your relationship is more distant, the editor may be happy to proceed, but you should still confirm with them. Please read this document for more information on competing interests in peer review.

Please contact the journal editor ([email protected]), they will ensure you have access to the necessary documents, or be able to relay them to you.

Please contact the journal editor ([email protected]), they will make sure the author is contacted to retrieve the information you need (in compliance with the journal’s peer review anonymity model).

Please contact the journal editor ([email protected]), they will make sure the author is contacted to retrieve the information you need (in compliance with the journal’s peer review anonymity model).

Please contact the journal editor ([email protected]), they will help you to submit your review comments.

Yes, please contact the journal editor ([email protected]). They can set a longer deadline in the system, with the Editor’s approval.

Please contact the journal editor ([email protected]) for them to withdraw you as a reviewer for the manuscript in question.

Please email your comments to the journals editor ([email protected]). If the decision has not already been processed, they will be able to pass your comments on to the editor.

Please contact the journal editor ([email protected]), who will see that your account is updated.

No, you must not disclose, publish, or publicize anything about the work or the process of peer review without the consent of the authors. This includes details of the manuscript, supplementary information, and any correspondence from the journal relating to it. This applies whether the study is eventually published or not.

If the authors have put the work in a pre-print server, this implies permission for citation and discussion. However, all aspects of the peer review process must remain confidential.

For advice on what to include in your review comments, please see the ‘How to write a peer review report’ section on the peer review checklist page.

Make sure your comments are polite and constructive, even if you have serious concerns about the validity of the work.

Please contact the journal editor ([email protected]), they will ensure the Editor is contacted to further investigate.

Signing the report means that you make your identity known as the reviewer by including it in the comments of the authors section of the report.

As a publisher we make a commitment to keep the reviewers’ identities confidential in line with each individual journal’s policy. However if you choose to reveal your identity you are usually free to do so.

The Primary Education Journal operates a closed peer review policy, where the reports are not made public. In general you can assume that your comments will only be shared with those who are party to the peer review process.

The editor’s role is to weigh up the reports received, along with their own subject knowledge and their understanding of the journal’s aims and scope, and reach a balanced decision. This means that sometimes they may make a different decision to that recommended by the reviewer, particularly on aspects such as novelty and level of advance.

However, if you think an editor has disregarded an important point which may impact upon the validity of a piece of research, please contact the journal editor ([email protected]), who will ensure the correct team is contacted to investigate further.

Please contact the journal editor ([email protected]), who will ensure the editorial team is contacted to further investigate your complaint.

• If a revision is submitted, you will most likely be invited to review it again
• Some journals notify reviewers of the final decision on a paper they reviewed
• You will receive a survey about your satisfaction with the review process

If a revised version of the manuscript is submitted after you have made comments on it, you may be invited to review the paper again. Though you are not required to do so, we would be very grateful for your continued contribution to the research.

The survey is to ask about your satisfaction with the review process. This helps us identify any areas we can improve upon or make more convenient for future reviews by you and other reviewers. It also helps us to understand our peer reviewer community better so that we can offer you the right support in future.

Please contact the journal editor ([email protected]), who will contact the appropriate team to ensure your name is included in the reviewer thank you list

Yes, please contact the journal editor ([email protected]) and they will ensure that your review is removed.