Guidelines for Article Reviewers
Reviewer Guidelines
The peer review model
Open Research Europe operates formally invited peer review after publication, which is fully open and transparent, and led by the article authors. Reviewers are usually suggested by the authors following certain reviewer criteria. Peer reviews are published – alongside the reviewers’ full names and affiliations – as soon as they’re submitted and form an integral part of the article. Peer review directly determines whether the article has ‘passed peer review’ and is indexed in bibliographic databases (once the platform has been formally approved by those indexers).
If you’ve been invited to review an article and would like more information on our model, please visit our How it Works page. Alternatively, please use the menu to the left for more detailed information on the peer review process.
Article Submission
Publication &
Data Deposition
Data Deposition
Open Peer Review
& Article Revision
& Article Revision
Send to Indexers & Repositories
Scope and article eligibility
Open Research Europe publishes articles in all fields of science. Articles that are a result of Horizon 2020 funding across any scientific field, including Natural Sciences, Engineering and Technology, Medical Sciences, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, Social Sciences, and Humanities and the Arts are eligible for publication on the Open Research Europe publishing platform.
Reviewers are asked to assess the validity of the article content, rather than the novelty or interest levels. All articles and peer reviews are Open Access and published under a CC-BY license. Open Research Europe also has an Open Data policy: articles discussing original results must make available the underlying source data alongside, and the details of any software used to process them. Exceptions are possible, according to the relevant Horizon 2020 policy.
Formal invited open peer review occurs after the article is published. Before publication, articles undergo checks by the in-house editorial team to ensure they meet our reporting criteria. Our pre-publication checks include:
- Authors are eligible to publish – at least one article author must be involved in a running or completed H2020 project from the European Commission and the article must be a result of that project.
- Article types – articles are checked whether they meet the criteria and format of specific article types.
- Readability – as we do not copy edit articles, the standard of language and readability must be sufficient for readers to be able to follow the article.
- Plagiarism – articles are checked for plagiarism before publication.
- Methods section – we check that details of methods and resources are provided, so the work can be assessed (we will ask you as an expert reviewer to comment whether more information would be required for others to reproduce the work).
- Policies – we check that articles publishing research involving humans or animals adhere to our ethical policies.
- Data – we check that source data underlying the results are made openly available (we will ask you as an expert reviewer to comment whether the source data are appropriate for others to reproduce the work).
Reviewer eligibility
Reviewers are chosen using our reviewer criteria, ensuring that the people invited are experts in their field of research. If a paper includes statistical analysis or new statistical methods, reviewers are also selected based on their knowledge of these fields.
We are very appreciative of the work our reviewers do for Open Research Europe, and believe it is important for them to be rewarded for the time and effort they spend assessing articles, as peer review is an invaluable contribution to the scientific community. Read more here.
Peer reviewer code of conduct
To help ensure that peer review at Open Research Europe is constructive and beneficial to authors, readers and other reviewers, we ask that reviewers:
- Read the article fully – please read the full text of the article and view all associated figures, tables and data;
- Be thorough – a peer review should discuss the article in full as well as individual points, and should demonstrate your understanding of the article;
- Be specific – your comments should contain as much detail as possible, with references where appropriate, so the authors are able to fully address the issue;
- Be constructive in your criticism – do not hesitate to include any concerns or criticisms you may have in your review, however, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner;
- Avoid derogatory comments or tone – review as you wish to be reviewed and ensure that your comments focus on the scientific content of the article in question rather than the authors themselves.
We would also recommend that reviewers familiarise themselves with the Committee On Publication Ethics’ (COPE) ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. If the editorial team are concerned that a review does not meet the standards above, we will contact the reviewer before publication of their peer review.
Guidelines for reviewing
When you agree to review an article published by Open Research Europe you will receive an email with a link to the article, a proposed deadline, and information on how to submit your review. The request will also appear in your My pages if you already have an account with us.
If you have a potential competing interest please contact us before you begin to write the review, so that we can confirm you are eligible. When you submit your review we also ask that you declare any competing interests here also, so that they can be displayed on the peer review when published.
Approval status
We ask reviewers to choose an approval status, which both helps directly determine whether an article is indexed, and provides readers with an at-a-glance view of your thoughts on the article. Please bear in mind that the rating should be based on whether the article has academic merit, not on the novelty or importance of an article.
The approval statuses to choose from are:
- Approved: No or only minor changes are required. For original research, this means that the experimental design, including controls and methods, is adequate; results are presented accurately and the conclusions are justified and supported by the data.
- Approved with Reservations: The reviewer believes the article has academic merit, but has asked for a number of small changes to the article, or specific, sometimes more significant revisions.
- Not Approved: The article is of very poor quality and there are fundamental flaws in the article that seriously undermine the findings and conclusions.
Writing the review
We also ask reviewers for a review which reflects their assessment of the article, including any constructive criticisms they may have and suggestions for improvement. Please note that reviews should be written in good English - the editorial team will be in touch if we need further clarification or detail. The peer review form also includes questions to help reviewers focus on sections of the article. These questions are compulsory and differ depending on the article type being reviewed. This review, the approval status and the reviewer’s full name and affiliation will be published alongside the article. When a reviewer submits their review we ask that they declare whether they have any competing interests, which will be displayed on the peer review when published.
Reviewers are also asked to explain their expertise, in particular in areas where the reviewer’s relevant experience may not be immediately obvious from a publication record and public profile.
We encourage reviewers to adhere to the principles of the Open Science Peer Review Oath; the Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE) has also developed guidelines for peer reviewers, which outlines basic principles for peer reviewers.
Guidelines for reviewing specific article types
Open Research Europe asks reviewers a set of questions tailored to each article type, as different article types may require a different focus. Click on the article types below to see the questions.
Science Technology and Medicine reviewer questions
Social Sciences reviewer questions
Humanities Reviewer Questions
How to submit your peer review
There are two ways for you to submit your review:
Submit your review online
To submit your review online, you can either use the link in the email you will have received upon agreeing, or visit your Peer Reviewing page (here you can find a record of the articles you have been invited to review, any draft peer reviews you may have, and all the reviews you have published with us). To submit a review, simply go to the ‘Invited Reports’ tab and click “Yes, I agree to be a reviewer for this article”, confirm this action and then click “Write your report”. You can then write your review (and save a draft copy if desired), and then preview and submit it.
Submit your review offline
Alternatively, you can complete a form in Word and email it to us. If you would prefer to write your review using this form, please contact the editorial team who will provide you with a copy.
The peer review form includes a section for you to declare any competing interests, and for you to name anyone who co-reviewed the article with you. Co-reviewers’ names and affiliations are also published, so that they receive full credit.
Unless we have any questions about your review, it will be published alongside the article soon after you have submitted it to us. We will let you know how you can access it once it has been published.
The peer-review process
Peer review progression
The peer review status of the article changes as the reviews are published. The progress of peer review is clearly marked on each article and is part of the citation.
Immediately on publication, and while reviewers are assessing the work, the article is labelled as “Awaiting peer review”. This forms part of the title and is shown in the Open Peer Review summary box within the article HTML and PDF. As soon as a peer review is received, it is published alongside the article and the approval rating is displayed. As additional reviews are received, the peer review status is updated. All articles remain fully published and available on Open Research Europe regardless of their peer review status.
Once Open Research Europe has been formally approved by bibliographic databases, articles that receive two ‘Approved’ statuses, or two ‘Approved with Reservations’ statuses and one ‘Approved’ status, will be indexed there.
Article revisions
At any time in the peer review process, the authors may choose to revise their article in response to the reviewer comments – when this happens, a new version is published and the original reviewers are re-invited to review. Reviewers can then publish an updated review, taking the revisions into account.
All versions of the article, and all peer reviews, will remain published so that anyone may see the history of the article. If you previously reviewed the article, updating your review to give feedback on the revised version is very important, as it allows the authors and readers to see whether your concerns have been addressed satisfactorily.
Volunteer to be a reviewer
We would love to hear from you. Please contact our editorial office and let us know you are interested in reviewing. When contacting us, please attach a copy of your CV and complete this form, so that we can be sure you meet our Reviewer Criteria. Don’t hesitate to let us know if there is an article you would like to be considered for, however please bear in mind that we cannot guarantee you will be invited to review a particular manuscript.