Reviewers' Information Pack - (Page 16)

Reviewers’ Information Pack Supporting the Peer Review Process 7. A BRIEF GUIDE TO REVIEWING 7.4. Communicating Your Report to the Editor Once you have completed your evaluation of the article the next step is to write up your report. If it looks like you might miss your deadline, let the editor know. Some journals may request that you complete a form checking various points, others will request an overview of your remarks. Either way, it is helpful to provide a quick summary of the article at the top of your report. It serves the dual purpose of reminding the editor of the details of the report and also reassuring the author and editor that you understood the article. The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section. Commentary should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks. Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are better able to understand the basis of the comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or reflected by data. When you make a recommendation regarding an article, it is worth considering the categories an editor will likely use for the classifying the article: a) Rejected due to poor quality, or out of scope b) Accept without revision c) Accept but needs revision (either major or minor) In the latter case, clearly identify what revision is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article. 16

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Reviewers' Information Pack

Reviewers' Information Pack
About Elsevier
1.1 A Short History of Elsevier
About Peer Review
2.1. What is Peer Review?
2.2. Who Are Reviewers?
2.3. Why Reviewers Review?
2.4. Peer Review Process
2.5. Types of Peer Review
Duties of Reviewers
3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
3.2. Promptness
3.3. Confidentiality
3.4. Standards of Objectivity
3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources
3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.7. Adherence to Elsevier Publishing Ethics
Peer Review System
4.1. The EES
4.2. Tools to Help
Supporting Our Reviewers
5.1. Customer Front End
Listening to our Reviewers
6.1 Reviewer Feedback Programme
6.2. Reviewers’ Home
A Brief Guide to Reviewing
7.1. Purpose of Peer Review
7.2. On Being Asked To Review
7.3. Conducting The Review
7.4. Communicating Your Report To The Editor

Reviewers' Information Pack