Guide for Reviewers

REVIEWERS

JoCE expects scholars to contribute to the academic community through reciprocal engagement, including the provision of high-quality peer reviews that support sound editorial decision-making. Insightful, constructive reviews are essential to advancing research quality and helping authors strengthen their work. As a gesture of appreciation, JoCE may offer a modest symbolic honorarium to its reviewers.

JoCE allows peer reviewers to freely express their perspectives on received manuscripts, however, JoCE encourages reviewers to provide feedback of such length and depth that they would like to receive on their own work. Reviews may be deemed insufficient by the handling editor, potentially requiring new peer reviewers to be involved.

If a potential reviewer does not consider themselves qualified enough to review the submitted manuscript or is limited by time constraints, they should decline the invitation to participate in the review process. In case the provided review is considered insufficient (lacking depth and meaningful insight), editors shall refrain from reaching out to the author of such a review in the future, as JoCE considers providing insufficient feedback on a fellow's work after committing to it, scholarly malpractice. If a reviewer wishes to withdraw, they are free to do so at any moment of the review process, and the editors must respect their decision without further inquiry, judgment or consequences.

Confidentiality

All materials provided by JoCE for the purpose of peer review are confidential and should be used exclusively for this purpose. Enclosed manuscripts are not to be shared with third parties, discussed with colleagues or used for personal advantage. In case the reviewer needs to share with a third party or discuss the manuscript provided for peer review for a particular reason, it is only allowed on a case-by-case basis after approval by the handling editor, who can ensure the safety of such action.

Reviewer’s Due Diligence

Should a reviewer uncover potential ethical or academic issues in the reviewed manuscript, they must highlight and emphasise them in their review report. Reviewers shall support their claims of potential ethical or academic issues with relevant argumentation, including references to original sources in case of overlapping ideas.

Declaration of Competing Interests

Manuscripts provided for peer review must always be evaluated objectively and fairly. Reviewers must avoid bias, favouritism, prejudice, or personal criticism. Feedback should be delivered constructively, with the goal of strengthening the author’s work. Blame or disparagement is not acceptable; arguments must be clear, well-supported, and respectful.

All reviewers must disclose any financial, institutional, or personal relationships that could be perceived to influence their ability to provide an impartial review. If a reviewer has a potential conflict of interest, they must inform the editor immediately and decline the review. If a conflict arises during the review process, the reviewer must notify the editor as soon as possible and withdraw.

Examples of relevant conflicts include:

• Employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or patents connected to the manuscript topic
• Personal or professional relationships with the authors
• Shared institutional affiliations or recent collaborations with the authors

Reviewers must suggest citations to their own work only when it is directly relevant and scientifically justified. Self-promotion for personal gain is considered unethical and may result in being barred from reviewing for JoCE in the future.

Failure to disclose relevant conflicts may lead to disqualification from future review activities and may be reported to affiliated institutions in line with COPE guidelines.

---