How To Become A Reviewer
Peer review is essential for filtering out poor-quality articles by assessing the validity and integrity of the research. We value and depend on the work done by expert peer reviewers in the academic community to facilitate the process of publication and dissemination of research within their fields of expertise.
If you are an inexperienced or first-time reviewer, the peer review process may seem daunting. However, the peer review process can be very rewarding because it allows you to contribute to the development of your field and your own research and writing skills. Below we explain what peer review involves.
How to become a reviewer
There are two ways to register as a reviewer.
- Create a reviewer account on Healthcare Open
Search for the journal’s name and then click the reviewers tab. This will take you to the peer review system, where you can create an account. After you create the account, your information will be reviewed by the editors. After the approval,
- You will be part of the journal’s reviewer database.
- You can make your profile more attractive by adding keywords related to your areas of expertise to boost your chances of being invited to review.
- Editors can rate your reviews, and this increases the chances of being invited to review again.
- Contact the journal editor or editorial office directly.
In your email communication, express your interest, summarize your expertise, and present yourself as a valuable reviewer.
When you contact the editor or editorial office directly, the following steps will be taken:
- We will determine if your area of expertise fits the journal's scope.
- We will review your experience in research and scientific publication.
- The editors will send you an invitation to review if a manuscript in your expertise and experience fits the expectations of the journal.
Key points about the peer review
- We understand that our reviewers are busy, so it may not always be possible for you to accept an invitation to review.
- To avoid delays, please inform the editor as soon as possible if you are unable to accept an invitation to review or encounter any issues after accepting.
- If you cannot review a manuscript, we would appreciate if you could suggest an alternative reviewer.
Things to consider before you begin a review
- Timing: Inform the editor immediately if you will not be able to meet the deadline, and to avoid receiving invitations to review when you are unavailable.
- Suitability: Do you have any reason why you should not review the submission? If in doubt, check with the journal’s editor.
- Confidentiality: You must not share the content of a paper you have been invited to review, unless you have permission from the journal’s editor. If you suspect that author misconduct has taken place, only discuss this with the editor.
- Co-reviewing: Inform the journal editor if you wish to collaborate on a review with a colleague or student.
- You may also wish to refer to COPE’s guide on what to consider when asked to peer review a manuscript before beginning a review.
What to include in a review?
- In addition to your review comments (introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusions), you will likely be expected to select an overall recommendation to the editor.
The common recommendation types are:
- Accept: No further revision required. The manuscript is publishable in its current form. The majority of articles require revision before reaching this stage.
- Minor Revision: The paper is mostly sound but will be sent back to the authors for minor corrections and clarifications, such as the addition of minor citations or the tweaking of arguments. These revisions should not involve any major changes. However, changes should be marked for the attention of the previous reviewers. The paper may be subject to re-review.
- Major Revision: The principle of the article is sound, and it has a chance of being accepted, but requires substantial changes to be made. This may include further experiments or analysis, the inclusion of additional literature or theory, or an improvement of arguments and conclusions. The authors are required to submit a point-by-point response to the reviewers, and the paper will be subject to a re-review. If issues of quality, novelty, and/or contribution cannot be addressed through revision, the reviewer should recommend rejection rather than revision. Editors withhold the right to reject the paper should revisions be insufficient.
- Reject: The manuscript is of insufficient quality, novelty, or significance to warrant publication. Even when recommending rejection, the reviewer is encouraged to share their suggestions for improvement in the Comments to the Authors field.
