Reviewer guidelines

About our peer review process

Our peer review process is designed to support rigorous, constructive, and efficient evaluation of research. It is guided by five principles that help reviewers, authors, and editors work toward a clear outcome while improving the quality of the manuscript.

Collaboration
Authors, reviewers, and handling editors work in the same review forum to clarify points, respond to feedback, and support iterative improvement.

Objectivity
Reviews focus on evidence and established standards: the validity of the methods, the accuracy of the analysis, the reliability of the results, and the clarity of reporting.

Rigorous review
Reviewers provide constructive feedback that addresses the science and the manuscript, with attention to what must change for the work to meet publication standards.

Transparency
Frontiers operates single-anonymized peer review. Reviewer identities remain anonymous during review. Endorsing reviewers are named on the published article to acknowledge their contribution.

Efficiency
The review forum guides participants through each stage and notifies you only when action is needed, supporting timely review and clear next steps.

The peer review process includes the following stages:

1. Initial validation

2. Editorial assignment

3. Independent review

4. Interactive review

5. Review finalized

6. Final validation

As a Reviewer, your main contribution is during independent review and interactive review.

During independent review, you submit your initial assessment and recommendation using the review forum. During interactive review, you discuss the manuscript with the authors and Handling Editor until you decide to endorse for publication or recommend rejection.

Expected duration for each stage

Independent review
You are expected to submit your initial review report within 10 days.

You may request an extension if needed. The Editorial Office may revoke assignments that are significantly delayed without an extension request.

Interactive review
Authors are typically given 7, 10, or 14 days to revise, depending on the revision level (minor, moderate, or substantial). Authors may request extensions.

How to request a review extension

Before you accept a review invitation

When you are invited to review a manuscript, you will receive an email invitation with a link to the review forum. Before accepting, confirm that:

• the manuscript is within your area of expertise

• you can complete the review within the timeframe (or request an extension)

• you have no conflicts of interest that could affect impartiality

• you can keep the manuscript and review process confidential

If you are unsure whether you are the right Reviewer, or whether a conflict of interest applies, contact the peer review team before accepting.

Community reviewers may also choose manuscripts through self-assignment or Frontiers Discover, where available.

If you accept an invitation after the required number of reviewers has already been secured, you may not be added to the manuscript immediately. The handling editor will be informed and may re-invite you if additional input is needed later.

Conflict of interest

You must declare any conflict of interest before beginning your review.

Examples of potential conflicts include:

• recent collaboration or co-authorship with any of the authors

• working at the same institution

• a close personal or professional relationship with an author

• direct academic competition

• financial or commercial interests related to the manuscript

If you are uncertain whether something constitutes a conflict, disclose it and request guidance from the Editorial Office.

Confidentiality and responsible use of manuscript content

All manuscripts under review are confidential. As a reviewer, you must not:

• share the manuscript or associated files with unauthorized third parties

• use unpublished data or ideas from the manuscript for your own work

• disclose your review, reviewer status, or comments outside the review process unless permitted by Frontiers policy

Co-reviewing
If you are an early-career reviewer or wish to co-review with a colleague, contact the Editorial Office for approval. The invited senior reviewer remains responsible for the final review report.

Use of AI tools
Please follow Frontiers policy on the use of AI tools in peer review. AI tools may be permitted provided confidentiality is maintained and no manuscript content is shared with external tools. You remain fully responsible for the content of your review.

To support your review while safeguarding author privacy, an internal AI tool may be available within the review forum to summarize content and help analyze and draft feedback. This tool does not participate in editorial decision-making and should not be used for that purpose.

Learn more about AI and research tools

As a reviewer, you are responsible for:

• evaluating the manuscript fairly and objectively, within your area of expertise

• assessing scientific quality, rigor, clarity, and relevance

• evaluating whether methods, results, and conclusions are valid and appropriately reported

• providing constructive feedback that helps the authors improve the manuscript

• identifying potential ethical or integrity concerns (for example plagiarism, image manipulation, inappropriate claims, or undisclosed conflicts of interest)

• maintaining confidentiality throughout the process

• declaring conflicts of interest

• submitting your report and recommendation on time, or requesting an extension if needed

Frontiers performs pre-review quality and integrity checks, but you should still raise any concerns you identify during your review.

Before a manuscript is sent for peer review, submissions undergo standard initial checks by the Research Integrity team. These checks may include:

• textual overlap with published material

• potential image or data manipulation

• language quality

• adherence to editorial policies

• adherence to ethical standards

• potential conflicts of interest

AIRA

Before peer review, each manuscript undergoes initial validation by the Research Integrity team, supported by AIRA (artificial intelligence review assistant). AIRA helps flag potential issues at scale, with all outputs checked through human validation.

Checks include ethics compliance, human image detection, text overlap, language quality, scope fit, duplicate submissions, potentially sensitive topics, and potential commercial conflicts.

Learn more about research integrity

At this stage, the handling editor assesses whether the manuscript is suitable to proceed to peer review. If the manuscript is sent for review, the handling editor invites suitable experts. You will join only once you are assigned as a reviewer.

During independent review, you assess the manuscript using the review questionnaire (which may vary by article type) and submit your report in the review forum.

How to submit your review report

What makes a strong review
A strong review is:

• objective: focused on the manuscript, not the authors

• specific: identifies strengths, weaknesses, and required changes clearly

• constructive: explains how the work can be improved

• evidence-based: grounded in the manuscript’s content, methods, results, and reporting

• professional: respectful in tone, even when raising serious concerns

A useful review often includes:

• a brief summary of the manuscript and its contribution

• major issues that must be addressed

• minor issues or clarifications

• an overall recommendation

Where possible, refer to specific sections, figures, tables, or line numbers.

Questions you can use to guide your assessment include:

• Is the research question clear and relevant?

• Is the methodology appropriate and transparently reported?

• Are results presented clearly and interpreted appropriately?

• Do the conclusions follow from the evidence?

• Is the manuscript clearly written and well structured?

• Are figures and tables clear and scientifically appropriate?

• Are relevant ethical, reporting, and data standards met?

Focus primarily on the scientific content. Minor language issues should be noted only when they affect clarity or interpretability.

Recommendation categories

When submitting your review, you will be asked to recommend one outcome:

Accept in current form
The manuscript is suitable for publication without further revision, or only minor editorial corrections are needed.

Minor revision is required
The manuscript is fundamentally sound, but limited clarifications or small corrections are needed.

Major revision is required
The manuscript requires substantial revision, additional clarification, or further analysis before it can be considered publishable.

The manuscript should be rejected
The manuscript has serious flaws, ethical concerns, or limitations that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

Your written comments should clearly support your recommendation.

Editing your report
You can edit your review report while the manuscript remains in independent review. Once interactive review begins, changes to the submitted report are not permitted.

How to edit your review report

Endorsing during independent review
If you are satisfied that the manuscript is ready for publication and do not require an author response, you may endorse and finalize at this stage. Do this only if you do not expect further discussion. The handling editor may reactivate your review later if additional input is needed.

Interactive review is an ongoing discussion between reviewers, authors, and the handling editor. Once activated, reviewer reports and editor comments become visible to participants in the review forum. Authors are asked to respond point by point and, where necessary, upload a revised manuscript.

When assessing a revision, consider:

• Have the authors responded clearly and completely to your comments?

• Have they submitted a revised manuscript that reflects those changes?

• Are the scientific concerns resolved?

• Do the methods, results, and conclusions now meet the required standard?

• Are reporting, ethics, and data requirements adequately addressed?

During interactive review, you may choose to:

• Endorse for publication if you are satisfied with the revision. Your review becomes finalized.

• Request further revisions if concerns remain. Your review remains active.

• Recommend rejection or withdraw if you cannot continue or if issues cannot be resolved through revision. Your review becomes inactive, and you will no longer have access to the discussion.

Keep the discussion professional and focused on the work. If disagreement arises, explain your reasoning clearly and avoid personal or dismissive language.

Withdrawing or recommending rejection

If you recommend rejection or withdraw, you may provide your reasons in the designated area of the review forum. These comments are visible only to you, the handling editor, the Chief Editors, and the Editorial Office. They are not visible to authors or other reviewers. Where appropriate, the handling editor may share the substance of these comments with the authors, while preserving your anonymity.

If you are unable to continue, withdraw as soon as possible so the editor can decide the next steps.

Reviewer naming policy
Frontiers uses single-anonymized peer review: reviewer identities remain anonymous during review. Endorsing reviewers are named on the final published article. If you do not consent to being named, you should withdraw from the process. Requests to remain anonymous on the final publication cannot be accommodated.

Recommending rejection
If you believe the manuscript should be rejected, explain your reasoning clearly and objectively. Reasons may include:

• fatal flaws in study design or analysis

• unsupported conclusions

• major ethical concerns

• lack of sufficient scientific rigor

• issues that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision

If you suspect misconduct or have sensitive integrity concerns, raise these privately with the peer review or research integrity teams rather than in the public discussion area.

Learn more about our acceptance and rejection criteria

Once your review is finalized, your active role in the discussion is complete. The handling editor determines whether the manuscript is ready to progress. In some cases, your review may be reactivated if additional feedback is needed.

During final validation, the peer review team conducts final technical checks before the manuscript is sent to production. You will be notified when production begins. A provisional acceptance page (title and abstract) may be published at this stage.

Chief Editor validation
While final checks are completed, the section Chief Editor may comment on the review process. No action is required from you unless the peer review team contacts you.

Reactivating review during final validation
Occasionally, a review is reactivated, most commonly because additional revisions are needed. The peer review team will notify you if your input is required.

General advice and information

Conflict resolution and appeals
Scientific disagreement is a normal part of peer review. If concerns cannot be resolved through discussion, the matter may be escalated by the handling editor, Chief Editor, or peer review team in line with Frontiers policy.

Data and reproducibility
Encourage clear reporting and sufficient methodological detail to support reproducibility. Where appropriate, encourage authors to share underlying data and materials in line with Frontiers’ open science and data availability policies.

Confidentiality and data protection
Confidentiality and data protection are essential throughout peer review. Do not share manuscript content, your identity, or other sensitive information with unauthorized parties. All handling of personal data must comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and our privacy policy. If you have questions, contact the Editorial Office.

Escalating severe ethical issues or misconduct
If you suspect plagiarism, fabrication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other misconduct, notify the peer review or research integrity teams promptly. Sensitive concerns should be raised privately.

Long-term absences
If you anticipate an extended absence, inform the peer review team as early as possible so assignments can be reassigned and review timelines protected.

My Frontiers
You can view your assignments and activity in My Frontiers.

Extensions and support
If you need more time, request an extension through the review forum or contact the peer review team.

Learn more about requesting an extension

Reviewer recognition
Certificates and recognition materials, where available, can be accessed through My Frontiers. Reviewers may be acknowledged on published articles in line with Frontiers policy.

If you need support during peer review or have questions not covered here, contact your journal's Editorial Office by email.

A forum-based AI assistant is available in the review forum to answer common questions, provide status updates, and guide you through next steps. This tool can support navigation and drafting, but does not make editorial decisions.

Find out about research integrity

Thank you for your collaboration

By providing fair, constructive, and evidence-based feedback, you help improve manuscripts and support the integrity of the published record. Thank you for contributing your time and expertise to peer review and to the wider research community.