Peer Review Models
Highlights of Science applies a single-blind peer-review process for its journals by default, but offers choices for authors and reviewers to participate in signed review and open peer review.
Invitation to Review
Criteria for Judgement
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript to provide recommendation to editors on final decision-making and comments to authors on how to improve their paper. When doing the assessment, reviewers will also be asked to rate the English language, and check if the work meets the highest standards of publication ethics, i.e., the manuscript must be original, not be plagiarized, nor a duplication of previous work.
Overall Recommendation: Reviewers are required to submit an overall recommendation for each manuscript to help the editors on decision-making. These include Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, and Reject. Accept recommendations suggest that the paper is acceptable in its current form and requires no further corrections. If a reviewer has any additional comments, please submit a Minor Revisions (manuscript requires minor changes) or Major Revisions (manuscript requires extensive reworking or additional experimental work) recommendation. Reject recommendations indicate the manuscript is not suitable for the journal, or it has serious flaws.
Rating the Manuscript: Reviewers are asked to comment on the following aspects of a manuscript:
At the end of the peer-review process for a manuscript that passed the initial editorial screening and was sent out for external review, the academic editors (the Editor-in-Chief, Guest Editor, or an appropriate Editorial Board Member) will make a final decision based on reviewers’ comments and their own judgement. For this reason, the final decision of a paper may differ from the one that a reviewer recommended.
Certificate of Review
Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should provide impartial and objective assessments for the papers they are invited to review. Please notify the journal Editorial Office of any personal, professional or financial conflicts of interest that may affect the impartiality of the review report.
Confidentiality: Reviews must be done in strict confidence. Manuscripts that are under review should not be disclosed to a third party. Reviewers should destroy the copies after submitting their review. Reviewers must inform the journal Editorial Office beforehand if they wish to discuss the paper with a colleague.
Anonymity: All Highlights of Science journals apply a single-blind peer-review process. The review process is conducted anonymously. Please do not reveal any identity to the authors, either in the comments or in reports submitted via attached files.
Objective Comments: Reviewers should concentrate on providing an objective assessment of the work and should avoid making statements that could cause offence, are derogatory or potentially libellous.
Comments and Questions
Please send your comments and questions to email@example.com or directly to the journal Editorial Office.