Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation

Contents:

Becoming a reviewer

If you have any queries about reviewing an article, or are interested in becoming a reviewer for a Becaris journal, please contact the Editorial Director, Laura Dormer.

Journal Aims & Scope

Journal Aims & Scope can be viewed here:

Peer review for a Becaris journal

Peer review involves the independent, critical assessment of an article by external experts. The aim of peer review is to assess an article’s:

  • Scientific merit
  • Accuracy of information
  • Relevance to the journal’s readership

There is no need to comment extensively on spelling/grammar, unless if impedes understanding of the work. However, please feel free to assist the authors by noting any errors related to grammar and style if you are able.

The Journal Editor will use the comments provided by an article’s peer reviewers, along with their own assessment, to decide how to proceed with an article. The options the Journal Editor has once peer review is complete are:

  • Accept the article for publication as it is
  • Return the article to the authors so they can complete minor or major revisions based on the peer reviewer and Editor feedback
  • Reject the article for publication

Becaris journals employ a double-anonymized peer review system. This means that reviewers are not informed of the author(s) identity, nor are authors provided with the identities of the reviewers who have assessed their work. Your comments on this manuscript are sent anonymously to the author(s) via the Journal Editor and held in strict confidence. You are also welcome to provide confidential comments to the Editor that will not be forwarded to the authors, should you wish to do so.

Reviewing a Plain Language Summary of Publication (PLSP)

If you are reviewing a Plain Language Summary of Publication (PLSP) article, please find our dedicated Reviewer Guidelines here.

Completing your review

When the Journal Editor receives an article submission, it will first undergo initial internal quality review by the Journal Editor (e.g., ensuring the submission is within-scope, is novel, has been clearly written, meets our quality criteria, and includes any relevant disclosures and ethical approval information). Articles deemed suitable for consideration will then proceed to external, double-anonymized peer review.

Responding to an invitation to review

The Journal Editor will identify individuals they believe are suitable to assess the article. When you receive such an invitation, please consider:

  • Will the suggested deadline be suitable for you?
    • If not, the Journal Editor may be able to extend this, so do get in touch to discuss this with them if you are interested in reviewing
    • In addition, if a delay occurs when completing your review, or if you become unable to complete the review after acceptance, do let the Journal Editor know so they can either extend your deadline or identify a new reviewer to replace you
  • Is the topic of the article within your area of expertise?
  • Do you have any potential conflicts of interest with the content?
    • A conflict of interest may prevent you from conducting an unbiased review of the article, so this should be brought to the attention of the Journal Editor

If you are unable to accept an invitation to review, it is helpful to make suggestions for alternative reviewers if you can.

Accessing the article

Once an invitation has been accepted, you will be able to access the article for review via our submission system SciPR and submit your comments via the system. Alternatively, should you prefer, you may email your comments back to the Editor directly (they will provide you with the manuscript files and a Reviewer Report Form for you to complete).

As a first step, you should read through the article, including any supplementary files. Please feel free to contact the Journal Editor at any time if you have a question regarding your review.

Confidentiality

It is important that the confidentiality of the peer review process is respected. Reviewers are expected to keep all manuscript files confidential; should you wish to consult with another individual (e.g., a colleague or early-career researcher you are supervising) when completing your review, please let the Journal Editor know before you do so. Please note that this includes uploading the manuscript to software or other artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured – please see further notes on the use of AI below.

Reviewer feedback form

The first part of your review involves the completion of the Reviewer feedback form. This section asks you to rate the article in a selection of areas, from ‘Excellent’ to ‘Unsatisfactory’. Please check the relevant box, based on your read through of the article. You will be asked to rate the article on:

  • Relevance to the journal audience
  • Novelty of the work
  • Quality of the abstract
  • Inclusion of background information on the topic
  • Quality of language/linguistic style
  • Appropriate use of Figures/Tables (where applicable)
  • Appropriate references included

For articles presenting original research, you will also be asked to rate the article on:

  • Clarity and validity of study design
  • Clarity/relevance of methodology
  • Use of statistical methods (where applicable)
  • Support of conclusions by the data

For articles that do not include original data, please select the ‘not applicable’ option.

You will also be asked in this section to make your recommendation to the Journal Editor on how to proceed with the paper:

  • Accept
  • Minor revisions
  • Major revisions
  • Reject

Reviewer comments

In the next part of your review, you can provide:

  • Anonymous comments to the author(s)
    • Please use this section to provide constructive comments to the author(s), outlining specific areas that may improve this manuscript, or explaining the reasons why it is not appropriate for publication.
    • It is helpful to number your comments, and refer to page/line numbers where possible..
    • Please consider the journal’s Aims & Scope when providing your feedback.
    • Please also consider the intended scope of the article; where additional investigations are essential to support the claims made in the manuscript, these should be made clear. Additional work that would strengthen or extend the work, but are not essential to support the manuscript’s findings, should be indicated as such.
    • You might like to use this section to:
      • Justify your responses in the earlier feedback form, giving examples from the text and using line numbers where possible
      • Provide suggestions for further references where appropriate
    • You may also want to consider whether the paper would benefit from a publication extender to help readers discover and learn about the authors' work. More information on publication extenders can be viewed here

 

  • Confidential comments to the Editor
    • Please use this section if you wish to provide any confidential comments to the Editor to support the reasons for your recommendation.
    • Please also use this section to provide any disclosures you would like to make the Editor aware of (that haven't already been discussed when you accepted the invitation). This includes disclosing the use of any AI-assisted technologies during the completion of your review. Please note:
      • Permission should first be sought from the Editor for the use of any AI-assisted technologies during the completion of your review, before any such use takes place
      • The manuscript should not be uploaded to software or other AI-based technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured
      • Reviewers remain responsible for the review comments provided
    • You might also like to use this section to:
      • Raise any ethical concerns. While the Journal Editor will make every effort to identify misconduct (such as figure/image manipulation, plagiarism, etc.) prior to review, please let them know if you have any concerns about the paper you are reviewing.

Points to note:

  • You may also upload your comments in a separate file. In addition, you may upload comments that you have inserted directly into the manuscript files.
  • Please make sure to remove all identifying information before uploading your files (e.g., remove your name from the file property field). If you choose to do this, please indicate that you are uploading a document in the comments box.

Review confirmation & submission

Finally, you will be asked to confirm your review and submit to the Journal Editor. If you need to make any corrections or further changes, click the ‘Back’ button to navigate to the previous pages and make your change/addition.

Reviewer honorarium

Peer reviewers are offered an honorarium in exchange for completion of their review. Where reviewers are unable or prefer not to accept an honorarium, the same amount is donated to a charity of the month nominated by Becaris Publishing. 

Reviewing plain language summaries

Becaris journals encourage authors to include an Abstract Plain Language Summary (PLS) within their article, and this is mandated for all original research articles. This allows authors to explain their article in a non-technical way, making them more accessible to a range of stakeholders, including the general public, patients, patient advocates, non-specialist clinicians, health policymakers, HTA and regulatory bodies, and a range of healthcare professionals.

Abstract PLS should be structured as follows:

  • Plain language version of the article title
  • Article summary as a series of questions, such as:
    • What is this article about?
    • What were the results?
    • What do the results mean?

An example can be viewed here: /doi/10.57264/cer-2023-0017

When assessing an Abstract PLS, reviewers should bear in mind the following questions:

  • Does it follow the recommended structure of an Abstract PLS?
  • Does it use straightforward language, with any technical terms removed or explained?
  • Is it written in the active voice (e.g., “The researchers conducted a study to look at how effective…” instead of “A study was conducted by researchers to look at how effective…”)?
  • Is it an accurate reflection of the work that has been done, with no important information left out?
  • Does it conclude with a clear takeaway message?

For more information on the plain language content Becaris journals include and useful resources for writing a PLS, visit our Plain Language Summaries page.

Artificial intelligence-assisted technologies

AI-assisted technologies should not be used to facilitate peer review without first seeking permission for the intended use from the Journal Editor.

Where permission for use is granted, Becaris journals follow the recommendations of the ICMJE and the 'WAME Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Scholarly Publications', including that:

  • Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript (as outlined above), which may prohibit the uploading of the manuscript to software or other AI technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured
  • Reviewers should disclose to journals if and how AI technology is being used to facilitate their review
  • Reviewers should be aware that AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased
  • Reviewers are responsible for any content and/or citations generated by AI technology

Further review

While some articles might be accepted for publication after undergoing one round of peer review, some may be subject to further rounds of review. As such, you may be invited to look again at a paper that you originally reviewed, and which has now been revised. In these cases, you will be asked to comment on whether the authors have addressed your original concerns to your satisfaction, or whether further revision is required.

Useful resources