Review guidelines for editors

Frontiers’ unique process optimizes the quality of published articles through a rigorous, constructive, and collaborative review. Five pillars are central to the peer review process:

Collaboration. Authors, reviewers, and handling editors collaborate in real-time to facilitate iterations and make informed decisions that enhance the manuscript's quality.

Objectivity. Editors and reviewers focus on objective criteria to evaluate the quality, rigor, and validity of a manuscript, ensuring that the results are valid, the analysis is correct, and the quality is high.

Rigorous review. Reviewers provide constructive comments and focus on the quality of both the research and the manuscript.

Transparency. Frontiers operates a single-anonymized peer review process: the identities of reviewers remain anonymous until publication. We name the reviewers on the final published article to acknowledge the invaluable contribution their feedback made.

Efficiency. The review forum guides reviewers and editors through the review process, alerting them only when they need to act. This makes the whole experience quicker and more efficient.

Peer review stages

The review process is made up of the following stages:

1. Initial validation

2. Editorial assignment

3. Independent review

4. Interactive review

5. Review finalized

6. Final validation

Community Reviewers join the process during the editorial assignment and independent review stages, where they submit their review reports. During the interactive review stage, discussions take place between the reviewers and corresponding author until a final decision to endorse or recommend rejection can be taken.

Your input as editor is required primarily for stages three to six.

As the handling editor for incoming manuscripts, you are responsible for:

• the initial assessment of the manuscript; in particular, checking that it fits the scope of the selected journal section

• inviting reviewers from your network and via Frontiers’ reviewer database

• ensuring the thoroughness of the reviews by checking the review reports and initiating the interactive phase of the review process

• mediating the discussion between reviewers and authors to ensure a timely and fair review

• making a final decision by considering all reviewers’ feedback for acceptance or recommendation for rejection to the chief editor of the journal section.

Handling editors and reviewers are acknowledged publicly on all published articles, and your final decision on a manuscript should consider all the reviewers’ feedback.

To perform your role, it is vital that you are familiar with Frontiers’ policies and practices outlined below.

Expected duration for each stage

To support you in ensuring the quality of the manuscripts, all submissions undergo standard initial quality checks by our research integrity team. All submissions are pre-screened by more than 20 different checks, which include:

• textual overlap with and similarity to published material

• potential image or data manipulation

• language quality

• adherence to editorial policies

• adherence to ethical standards

• potential conflicts of interest.

If issues are identified on any of the manuscripts you are handling, the research integrity team will notify you and the authors as part of our standard procedure. No action is required from you unless specifically requested.

Our unique process combines human expertise with cutting-edge AI technology to ensure scientific excellence at scale. AIRA (our artificial intelligence assistant) performs quality checks that would be impossible at scale through human effort alone, always in conjunction with human validation.

Our algorithms quickly and accurately evaluate submitted manuscripts against a set of quality measures including:

• ethics guidelines

• the presence of human images

• text overlap

• language quality

• scope verification

• duplicate submissions

• controversial topiics

• commercial conflicts

• data availability verification.

See more information about the work of our research integrity team

Accessing manuscripts and entering the review forum

When submitting a manuscript, authors may select you as an associate editor if they think you are well-suited to edit their manuscript. These invitations are based on matching the manuscript with relevant expertise, as determined by the publications listed on your Loop profile.

As the ‘preferred editor,’ you’ll be invited first to handle the peer review process. If you decline the assignment or don't reply after a few days, invitations will be sent to other associate editors.

When you receive an invitation to edit, please ask yourself the following questions.

• Do I have the right expertise?

• Can I be objective in my evaluation of the manuscript? (Please consider potential conflicts of interest, see below.)

• Do I have the time to handle the manuscript?

If your answer is ‘yes’ to all the above, you can click the ‘Accept’ link to accept the invitation.

If you can’t answer ‘yes’ to all the above questions, please click on the ‘Decline’ link in the invitation email. Doing this straight away means we won’t send you reminders and won’t delay the process for the authors.

Declare potential conflicts of interest

After accepting, you will be asked a list of questions about potential conflicts of interest. Please ensure that you do not have a conflict of interest with either the authors or the submitted research. If one or more conflicts apply, you will not be able to accept the assignment. Refer to our conflicts of interest policy for more information.

Not all conflicts of interest automatically prevent you from acting as editor on a manuscript. If you think that you are qualified to edit the manuscript, contact the peer review team by email: some minor conflicts of interest are possible but require a public statement on the published manuscript that must be arranged manually.

Your initial assessment

Once you have accepted the assignment, please read the manuscript and determine whether it should be sent for review or recommended for rejection to the specialty chief editor. Consider the following:

• Does it contain fundamental objective errors that cannot be rectified during review?

• Does the manuscript have a valid research question and apply correct and transparent methodology?

• Does the manuscript cover the relevant literature and draw strong conclusions supported by the data presented?

• Does the research adhere to Frontiers’ author guidelines, ethical standards and research quality in the field?

Please refer to our VALID criteria when assessing manuscript submissions (see our acceptance and rejection criteria for further guidance).

When an author submits their manuscript, they provide a summary of the manuscript’s scope and relevance to the journal, specialty section and/or Research Topic. Consider the scope statement when you are checking the manuscript’s content and its fit for the section. You can find the scope statement at the top of the review forum underneath the title and authors. Click ‘More’ to open a pop-up box displaying the full scope statement.

You're required to assess the manuscript within five days. Your initial options are to:

• start inviting reviewers to begin the review process if the manuscript is fit for review

• recommend it for rejection if the manuscript’s quality is below standard

• recommend a transfer to a different section and/or journal, if the scope is not aligned with your section.

If you need more time to assess the manuscript, contact our peer review team to request it. Otherwise, automated review invitations will be sent to suitable reviewers from our community.

Our AI assistant AIRA has several interactive indicators for associate editors:

• Scope suitability

• Image integrity

• Ethics guidelines (animal and human studies statement verification, and identifiable images and information)

• Review report quality (only applicable once a reviewer has submitted their initial report)

• Reviewer behaviors (only applicable once a reviewer has submitted their initial report)

When you log in to the review forum, you will be prompted if any AIRA checks require your attention on the manuscript. If you identify an issue in the manuscript related to any of AIRA’s quality checks, you can communicate this to the authors and ensure that your concerns are addressed during the review. For major concerns, please contact the peer review team.

Inviting reviewers

When inviting reviewers, you should consider the following requirements:

• Reviewers should hold a PhD with post-doctoral experience - or have several years of equivalent professional/ academic experience

• Reviewers should have the expertise necessary to assess the methods, results, and conclusions of the manuscript. This can be verified by checking that they have recent publications on the topic relevant to the manuscript. In some cases, reviewers with different areas of expertise may be needed to ensure that all aspects of the manuscript are peer-reviewed

• Reviewers should be diverse in experience, gender, and geographic location

• Reviewer affiliations should be recognized and verifiable

To prevent reviewer fatigue, please do not invite the same reviewer to review multiple submissions at the same time.

There are several ways to find suitable reviewers:

1. Invite experts from our community of reviewers

2. Invite external experts suggested on our platform

3. Invite external experts from your personal network

Automatic invitations will be sent in batches to our community of reviewers after the fifth day of peer review. You will have clarity on who is scheduled to be invited in the coming days, and you can edit this list by either removing entries or inviting candidates right away. If you prefer to postpone these automatic invitations, invite three reviewers within three days to gain an additional three days before the next batch of invitations is sent out.

During the independent review stage, reviewers assess the manuscript guided by a questionnaire. The questionnaires vary depending on the article type, helping reviewers to focus on objective issues and the validity of the manuscript.

Reviewers must complete this review questionnaire within seven days, but can request an extension if they need more time to complete their reviews. They can grant this directly on the review forum, or you can do it on their behalf using the ‘Grant extension’ button. If they require a more substantial extension, please notify the peer review team.

Reviewers conduct their reviews independently and do not have access to comments made by the other reviewers during this stage. The status of each review report is displayed in the ‘Manage Reviewers’ tab, where you can also send reminders to reviewers who are delayed. A reviewer’s submitted report is stored in their own tab.

When the reviewer uploads their report, they will be asked to submit a recommendation on the scale of revisions needed to guide you in your decision.

• Accept in current form

• Minor revision is required

• Major revision is required

• The manuscript should be rejected

If the reviewer recommends the manuscript for acceptance, they can endorse the article in the independent review stage and finalize their review right away. Doing so will close any further discussion for that reviewer.

If you would like the authors to respond directly to the reviewer, you can reactivate the reviewer’s tab once the article enters the interactive review or review finalized stages. This will require the reviewer to reconfirm their decision on the manuscript after the authors’ revisions.

You will be notified once an independent review report has been submitted. Your next step is to assess their quality, ensuring that they are comprehensive and thorough, and to request appropriate action from the authors. To assess the review reports, we recommend that you ask yourself the following questions:

• Is the reviewer’s feedback objective and constructive?

• Is the reviewer’s feedback appropriate, sufficiently rigorous, comprehensive and in scope?

• Has the reviewer identified fundamental flaws that cannot be addressed through revisions?

If you consider the review report too brief, not sufficiently rigorous, inappropriate, or out of scope, and you cannot make an informed decision:

1. Contact the reviewer to ask for additional feedback

2. Consider revoking the reviewer and invite a replacement reviewer

3. Inform the peer review team

Once you receive the required number of reviewers’ endorsements in the independent stage, the article will directly move to the review finalized stage for your final decision.

At this stage your options are:

• You think the manuscript has potential for publication: activate the interactive review and select the necessary level of revisions: minor, moderate, or substantial

• You think the manuscript should be recommended for rejection: post your reasoning in the ‘Editor’ tab and click on the ‘Recommend rejection’ button. This will activate the interactive review with major concerns

• Invite more reviewers to take a more informed decision

Activating the interactive review stage

If you are satisfied that at least two review reports are complete and adhere to our acceptance criteria, you can click the ‘Activate the interactive review’ button. This allows the authors to submit their responses and revisions for the reviewers. Please select the appropriate level of revisions (minor, moderate, or substantial) and enter a personal message, which will accompany the automatically generated message detailing the necessary action.

See more about activating interactive review

Recommending rejection in independent review

You can recommend the manuscript is rejected during the independent review stage. See more about how to recommend rejection.

Invite more reviewers

If you would like to obtain additional feedback beyond the required number of reviewers during the independent review stage, you are welcome to invite more reviewers. Please inform the editorial office so we can ensure the authors remain updated and any potential delays can be monitored and mitigated.

See more about inviting reviewers

Revoke a reviewer

You can directly revoke a reviewer by clicking on the cross next to their name in the ‘Manage reviewers’ tab. You may add a personal note in the message to the reviewer, explaining why this action had to be taken. Please note that if the minimum number of active reviewers is not met and you want to continue the review process, you will be required to find a replacement reviewer.

Please note that you can also revoke any pending reviewer invitations that are delayed in responding to the invite by clicking ‘Revoke open invitations’ under the ‘Manage reviewers’ tab.

Contacting the reviewers or the peer review team

There are two channels that you can use to communicate with reviewers.

• During the independent review:

  please send a message to the reviewer via the review forum with the peer review team in copy; to do so, please click on the blue envelope next to the reviewer’s name in the 'Manage reviewers' tab

• During the interactive review and review finalized phases:

  you can leave comments in either the editor tab or specific reviewer’s tab. The reviewers will also be able to see these comments, so please refrain from posting any identifying or sensitive information in this tab that might compromise the reviewers' anonymity.

The peer review team will not be notified about comments posted in the review forum. To contact us, do so via email.

Once you have activated the interactive review stage, all reviewer and editor comments in their tabs will now be accessible to all involved parties. At this stage, authors are prompted to respond to reviewers’ comments in the review forum, and to upload a revised version of their manuscript. Our system will automatically notify all participants when a new comment or revised manuscript is uploaded.

If the authors need an extension, they can grant themselves an extension via the review forum, or contact the peer review team for a longer extension.

As editor, you are expected to monitor the dialogue between reviewers and authors, and make sure it remains constructive, professional, and timely. Please consider the following guidance:

• Are the reviewers providing expert opinion and critical evaluation?

• Have there been multiple rounds of revisions, beyond what is necessary or feasible?

If a dispute arises at this stage, you will need to act as a mediator or invite new reviewers for additional opinions.

During the interactive review stage, reviewers can take the following actions:

1. Endorse for publication, if reviewers are satisfied with the revisions and have no further requests. Their review is Finalized.

2. Request further revisions, if reviewers are not yet satisfied with the revisions, then request additional changes. Their review remains Active.

3. Recommend rejection or withdraw if reviewers feel the content cannot be improved further or are no longer available to participate in the review. Their review becomes Inactive.

You will be notified by email when one of the above actions takes place.

The reasons for a reviewer’s recommendation to reject or withdrawal are accessible in their tab in the review forum and will be visible at the top of the report in red font. These reasons are only visible to you, the chief editors, and the editorial office. The authors and other reviewers cannot access these comments. This is also the case if a reviewer withdraws or recommends rejection without submitting a report. If appropriate, you can forward these comments to the authors, but please preserve the anonymity of the reviewer. These reviewers will remain anonymous regardless of the final decision for the manuscript.

Assessing a potential rejection

If a reviewer withdraws or recommends rejection, assess their rejection reason and take one of the following actions.

• Invite additional reviewers, if you do not agree with the recommendation or require further input

• Recommend rejection

What to do if:

You have a split decision between the reviewer reports

If you have a split decision/recommendation between the reviewers and need further guidance on how to proceed with the review process, please contact the peer review team.

2. You have secured the required number of endorsements for the paper to be eligible for acceptance, but there are still active reviewers on the manuscript.

You will not be able to provisionally accept the manuscript for publication if any other appointed reviewer is still due to act. You can either remind the reviewer to act or relieve them from their role by clicking on the ‘Revoke’ button next to their name (on the ‘Manage Reviewers – Summary’ tab).

Manuscripts enter the 'review finalized' stage once all reviewers have submitted their final decision on their reviews and the required number of endorsements has been reached.

For most article types, that requirement is two endorsements. For certain article types (General Commentary, Mini-Review, Opinion, Perspective), you only need one reviewer’s endorsement to move to a final decision. The review forum will guide you, so you know when the manuscript reaches this stage.

Your role as editor is to guide the review process to this stage and decide whether the revised manuscript is ready for publication. It’s now time for you to read the final version of the manuscript and consider all reviewer comments and author responses, while applying your own judgement and expert opinion.

Please read our acceptance and rejection criteria and consider the following questions:

• Are the reviews appropriate and of high quality?

• Has the final version of the manuscript been submitted?

• Does the manuscript propose a suitable research question and hypothesis, supported by relevant theory?

• Do the authors apply a correct and transparent methodology?

• Are the study, design, and materials clearly laid out?

• Is the language and presentation clear and adequate?

• Are figures and tables in line with scientific norms and standards?

• Do the authors follow Frontiers’ author guidelines on editorial and ethical policies?

• Is the manuscript grounded in existing literature through sufficient references, and does it offer appropriate coverage of the relevant literature?

If you are satisfied with the authors’ revisions and reviewers’ contributions, accept the manuscript. This will send the manuscript for final technical quality checks.

If you have any additional review comments, you can use your ‘Editor’ tab to post these comments to the authors for action. You can also use this tab to request a response to any comments made by a reviewer who withdrew, as the reviewer tab closes once the reviewer leaves the review process.

If you would like a reviewer to re-engage, you can re-activate their review.

Sometimes even after the authors have revised their work, a manuscript might not be fit for publication. You can still recommend the manuscript for rejection at this stage.

Remember, if you accept the manuscript, your name will appear on the published article as the handling editor. You are therefore publicly certifying the publication as a valid scholarly contribution. You are responsible for safeguarding the publication record - do not accept a manuscript if there are concerns that have not been addressed.

Rating the quality of the reviewers’ reports

Providing feedback on the quality of reviewer reports gives us insight into how we can improve our selection process and guiding resources for reviewers.

This can be done at any time after the initial review report is submitted, and you must complete it by the time you accept or reject a manuscript.

We use a five-star rating system from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). The rating can be modified right up until your final decision. These ratings are only used internally, and we will not disclose the rating to the authors or reviewers.

The final validation stage is when the peer review team conducts the last round of technical quality review checks. Once these checks are completed, the peer review team sends the manuscript to the production office for final typesetting and copy-editing before final publication. The peer review team will contact you to confirm that they have initiated production or to address any outstanding concerns that require your input.

When the production team prepares the manuscript, a provisional acceptance page is generated, featuring the manuscript’s title and abstract, which is made available online.

Chief editor validation

While the peer review team conducts their last round of checks, the section chief editor has the opportunity to comment on the manuscript’s review process. The peer review team will notify you if any comments require your attention.

Re-activating the review in final validation

In some cases, a manuscript’s review might need to be reactivated. The most common reason for this is that additional revisions are needed. The peer review team will let you know if this is required and the next steps.

Conflict resolution and appeals

Where disagreements or disputes arise between reviewers and authors, associate editors must facilitate respectful, constructive communication and seek a fair resolution grounded in scientific merit. If consensus cannot be reached, or if an author wishes to appeal an editorial decision, please forward the matter to the chief editor or peer review team for evaluation according to Frontiers’ appeals policy. All appeals will be considered transparently and impartially.

For further details or to guide authors, refer them to our full editorial policies and appeals process.

Diversity, equity and inclusion

Frontiers is committed to creating a diverse, equitable, and inclusive academic environment. Editors are encouraged to ensure diversity in reviewer selection and to recognize and address potential biases in the editorial process. Please consider gender, geographical location, career stage, and institutional diversity. All decisions should be grounded in objective academic criteria.

Data and reproducibility

Maintaining high standards of scientific rigor requires careful attention to data transparency and reproducibility. Editors should ensure that submitted manuscripts provide sufficient detail regarding methods, datasets, and analysis to allow other researchers to replicate the findings. Please encourage authors to share underlying data and relevant resources in accordance with Frontiers’ open science and data availability policies.

Confidentiality and GDPR compliance

Confidentiality and data protection are paramount throughout the peer review process. Editors must not disclose manuscript content, reviewer identities, or other sensitive information to unauthorized parties. All handling of personal data must comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Frontiers’ privacy policy. If you have questions or need guidance, contact the peer review team.

Handling severe ethical issues or misconduct

If you suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or any form of research misconduct, you must promptly notify the peer review or research integrity teams by email. Frontiers follows the COPE guidelines for investigating and resolving ethical concerns. All allegations are handled with strict confidentiality and due process to ensure fairness for all parties involved.

Long-term absences

If you anticipate an extended absence—due to illness, sabbatical, or other reasons—please inform the peer review team as early as possible. Manuscripts may be reassigned temporarily to ensure continuity and a timely review process. Your cooperation helps us maintain an efficient and fair editorial workflow for authors and reviewers.

If you need support during the peer review process, or have any questions about topics not covered in these guidelines, please contact us by email.

Need a quick answer? Our AI assistant, Fronton, is available in the review forum to help you. Fronton can answer most common questions, provide status updates, assist with technical issues, and guide you through the next steps of the peer review process. Simply log in to the review forum to start a conversation with Fronton today.

See more ways to contact Frontiers

Find out about our research integrity processes

Thank you for your collaboration

As an associate editor, you contribute not only to the impact and credibility of the research we publish, but also to a constructive and transparent editorial process for authors and reviewers. By applying these guidelines, offering clear communication, and providing fair, thoughtful assessment, you help create a positive experience for all involved. Your efforts support scientific progress and uphold the values that define our global community.

Thank you for your ongoing commitment and for playing a vital role within Frontiers’ editorial team.