Peer review

What peer review assesses

Peer review examines whether the manuscript’s question, methods or interpretive approach, evidence and conclusions meet the journal’s scholarly requirements. It improves assessment and reporting but does not guarantee that every error or instance of misconduct will be detected.

Scope of assessment

Review evaluates the submitted work, not the author’s reputation or a prediction of citation impact. Reviewers should consider the standards appropriate to the discipline: empirical validity, theoretical coherence, interpretive rigour, source criticism or a combination of these.

Publication decisions may also depend on scope, ethical acceptability and completeness. A paper can be methodologically sound and still be unsuitable for a particular journal. Conversely, a topical or potentially influential paper must not bypass scrutiny.

Who does what?

1. Submission and initial screening

Check the journal scope, article type, completeness, ethical documentation, permissions, originality and reporting. Work may be returned for missing information or rejected where it does not meet the journal’s criteria.

Checks before external review

Screening considers journal fit, article type, manuscript completeness, required statements and potential integrity concerns. Editors may request missing information before inviting reviewers. Passing screening does not imply that the findings are correct or that acceptance is likely.

For original research, the methods and evidence must be reported sufficiently for assessment. For reviews, the selection and synthesis approach must be clear. For theoretical and humanities work, the argument, source base and scholarly contribution must be identifiable.

Possible screening outcomes

• Proceed to editor assignment or external review.
• Return for missing or unclear material.
• Recommend a different article type or journal where appropriate, without promising acceptance.
• Reject on a substantive scope, quality or ethical basis.
• Pause assessment for an integrity concern requiring clarification.

2. Handling editor assignment

Assign a subject-appropriate editor who declares relevant competing interests. Manuscripts involving an editor as an author require independent handling.

Conflict management

The editor must disclose relationships or interests that could impair impartiality. Independent handling is required for the editor’s own manuscript and other cases where a conflict cannot be managed. Authors may raise a specific concern about an assignment, but they cannot demand a favourable editor or dictate the decision.

Where the manuscript relies on specialist statistics, methods or technical material, the editor should obtain appropriate expertise rather than treating unfamiliar details as automatically correct.

3. Independent expert assessment

Research articles normally receive at least two independent external reviews. Reviewers assess the question, approach, analysis, evidence, reproducibility or interpretive reasoning, limitations and conclusions. Editors evaluate report quality and may seek additional advice.

What reviewers assess

• Clarity of the question, argument or objective and its relationship to existing work.
• Appropriateness and reporting of the design, sources, measurements, methods and analysis.
• Whether findings and conclusions are supported and proportionate.
• Reproducibility, transparency and justified restrictions on data or code.
• Handling of uncertainty, bias, alternative explanations and limitations.
• Ethics, consent, rights, interests and relevant reporting standards.
• Clarity and consistency of the manuscript, figures, tables and references.

Reviewers should not demand a new and unrelated project as a condition of publication. Negative, null or replication findings should be judged on their methodological and scholarly merits rather than their direction.

Independent reports

Each reviewer provides their own assessment. Editors may seek clarification or further expertise when reports conflict or leave important issues unaddressed. The final decision is an editorial judgement, not a majority vote.

4. Author response and revision

Authors receive comments and an editorial decision. A revision includes a point-by-point response, an updated manuscript and a clear account of changes. Disagreements should be explained with evidence. Significant revisions may return to reviewers.

How authors should respond

1. Read the editor’s decision and identify the changes essential for reconsideration.
2. Prepare a numbered response to every editor and reviewer comment.
3. Describe the change and give its location in the revised manuscript.
4. Where a request is not followed, explain why with a reasoned argument or evidence.
5. Check that revisions do not create inconsistencies in the abstract, tables, figures or conclusions.
6. Supply clean and marked versions as requested and meet the agreed revision deadline or request an extension.

Respond professionally even when disagreeing. Personal criticism, speculation about a reviewer’s identity and attempts to influence the process outside the authorised channel are inappropriate.

Further assessment

Material changes may require another review round. Editors may accept a limited correction without external re-review if no specialist issue remains. A revision request does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

5. Editorial decision

The handling editor considers the manuscript and review record. Outcomes include rejection, revision or acceptance. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision but do not substitute for editorial judgement. Acceptance is independent of payment, waivers and sponsorship.

Decision rationale

The decision should identify the relevant criteria and unresolved issues. A rejection should not rely solely on a reviewer’s unexplained recommendation. An acceptance should not overlook a major flaw merely because other reviewers were positive.

Where the evidence is inconclusive or a concern cannot be resolved, the editor may request further information or decline publication. A change of editor or additional review may be necessary when a conflict or expertise gap is discovered.

Commercial independence

Waiver requests and payment collection must be handled separately from scientific assessment. Paying an invoice, belonging to a partner institution or holding a senior position cannot substitute for meeting editorial requirements.

6. Final checks and production

Before publication, confirm author approvals, rights, declarations and resolution of material concerns. Check proofs and metadata. Publication must follow the completed editorial process rather than payment alone.

Before the article becomes public

Confirm the accepted version, author details, declarations, figure and table quality, rights and supplementary material. Authors review proofs for production errors. A material change to the science or argument requires editorial attention rather than being treated as a routine proof correction.

Identifiers, issue information and indexing claims must be accurate and verified. Do not add an ISSN, DOI, editorial affiliation or database logo to create an appearance of recognition that has not been established.

After publication

Peer review does not end the obligation to correct the record. Readers and authors may raise substantiated concerns. Appropriate action can include a correction, expression of concern or retraction, with a clear linked notice.

Review standards

Reviewers and editors must have relevant expertise, disclose conflicts and protect confidentiality. Reports should be constructive and justified. Coercive citation requests, personal attacks, fabricated reviews and inappropriate use of unpublished information are prohibited.

Unacceptable review practices

• Fabricating reviewer identities or reports.
• Using a review to obtain unpublished information for personal advantage.
• Demanding irrelevant citations to increase an individual’s or journal’s metrics.
• Making personal, discriminatory or abusive comments.
• Delegating a confidential review without editorial permission.
• Submitting a superficial tool-generated assessment without verifying it or without complying with confidentiality requirements.
• Attempting to influence an editor through gifts, payment or personal pressure.

A concern about a reviewer or editor should be assessed on specific evidence. Disagreement with criticism is not itself evidence of misconduct.

Reviewer identity and communication

Review reports are confidential editorial records. Do not assume reviewer names or reports will be published. Identity disclosure or open-review publication requires an explicit documented policy and appropriate consent. Authors and reviewers should communicate through the authorised editorial channel.

Confidentiality and transparency

Spectrum’s current framework treats review reports as confidential editorial records. Do not assume that reviewer names, reports or author responses are public. Any future open-review arrangement must specify what is disclosed, when it is disclosed and whose consent is required.

Transparency still requires clear policies, documented decisions and accountable handling. Confidentiality must not be used to conceal a material conflict or prevent a fair appeal.

Authors should not contact suspected reviewers privately. Reviewers should not contact authors about the assignment outside the authorised editorial process. Editors should ensure that communications needed for assessment are preserved in the record.

Timelines and revisions

Review duration depends on subject expertise, reviewer availability, revision complexity and integrity checks. No acceptance or completion date is guaranteed. Authors should retain submission records and respond to revision requests within the agreed period.

What affects review duration?

Finding appropriate reviewers, resolving conflicts, obtaining specialist advice, evaluating revisions and investigating concerns all affect duration. A manuscript needing a new analysis or additional documentation may require more time than one needing a small clarification.

Specific due dates should be communicated for assignments and revisions. Participants should request extensions promptly where needed. Do not interpret silence as acceptance or a pending payment as evidence that review has finished.

Concerns and appeals

Raise factual or procedural concerns with the editorial office. An appeal should identify a specific error or procedural issue and provide supporting evidence. Independent assessment is required where a complaint concerns the original handling editor.

Preparing an appeal or complaint

Identify the manuscript and decision, describe the specific factual or procedural issue, and provide supporting documents. Distinguish a concern about the decision from a concern about conduct or confidentiality. Avoid personal allegations unsupported by evidence.

Independent assessment should consider whether the process was fair and whether a material error affected the outcome. It may uphold the decision, request clarification, arrange further review or take another proportionate action. No outcome should be promised before assessment.

Publishing infrastructure

This page describes Spectrum’s editorial standards. The manuscript form stores submissions privately and returns a receipt. Author accounts, reviewer assignments and the full review dashboard are separate features not yet available.