Reviewer guidelines

Reviewers are to contact the editor to discuss any potential conflicts of interest prior to accepting an invitation to peer review a manuscript. Reviewers are asked to comment on the level of conceptual advance and broad interest, as well as the technical rigor, statistical analysis, and presentation of the manuscript. Your perspective on the manuscript is valued. We ask that reviewers provide references where possible when describing overlap between the current manuscript under consideration and past work done in the field, particularly when such overlap is suggested to undermine the novelty of the work under consideration. Reviewers will have the opportunity to see each other’s comments, and modify their own comments in response, before a decision is made on a manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to provide critical yet respectful comments for authors.

Reviewers are to treat information from an unpublished manuscript as confidential at all times.

We feel consistency in peer review is important; therefore, we request that reviewers commit to reviewing future versions of the manuscript if needed.

Reviewers are prohibited from uploading or sharing a manuscript to natural language processors, large language models, or other generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies for analyzing and formulating peer review reports. Doing so represents a breach of confidentiality.

If a reviewer needs advice from a collaborator while peer-reviewing a manuscript, they should contact the editor in advance. Co-reviewing manuscripts with trainees (graduate students and postdocs) is encouraged – no need to contact the editor in advance.  When submitting the review, the invited reviewer must list the name(s) and email of the colleague(s), collaborator(s), or trainee(s) in the indicated field as co-reviewer. This enables co-reviewers to optionally link their review with their ORCID and/or Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service profiles. We expect that the invited reviewer has independently evaluated the manuscript and approved all comments and recommendations included in the review.

RUP collects voluntary self-disclosure of demographic information by authors, reviewers, and editors. The gender and race/ethnicity data are aggregated, and the information is used for demographic statistical reporting. By completing these fields, you help us to identify inequity in science and promote diversity. These questions adhere to the Joint Commitment for Action and Diversity in Publishing, a collective action among publishing organizations to set a new standard to ensure a more inclusive and diverse culture within scholarly publishing.

We encourage all reviewers to take advantage of features that allow them to receive credit for their contributions:

Reviewers have the choice to allow RUP to post verified reviewer credit to their ORCID records. Researchers who have created ORCID iDs can make the activity visible on their public ORCID records. Learn more about ORCID.

RUP assists in posting verified reviewer credit seamlessly to the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service for those who provide RUP and Web of Science permission to do so. The free service allows reviewers to record, verify, and publicly showcase their peer review contributions across publishers and journals. Through the platform, reviewers can download their contributions in a format that they can include in job and funding applications.

Please note that titles of the articles reviewed do not appear. Participation in both ORCID and Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service is voluntary. RUP does not share information without consent per our privacy policy.