Reviewer Guidelines


Guidelines to be followed

1. Prior to Accepting the Review:


Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

  • Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a High-quality review.
  • Do you have enough time? Reviewing can be a lot of work - before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can (even if it is to decline) - a delay in your decision slows down the review process and means more waiting for the author. If you do decline the invitation, it would be helpful if you could provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

2. Managing your Review:

Confidential material

If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can't share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since Peer-review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.

How to log in and access your review

Your review will be managed via an Frontier submission system. To access the paper and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received which will bring you to the submission/reviewing system. If you experience difficulties accessing the paper, you can contact us through our email id :

Journal-specific instructions

When you sit down to write the review, make sure you familiarize yourself with journal-specific guidelines. First read the article. You might consider spot checking major issues by choosing which section to read first. Below we offer some tips about handling specific parts of the paper such as:


If the manuscript you are reviewing is reporting an experiment, check the methods section first. The following cases are considered major flaws and should be flagged:

  • Unsound methodology
  • Discredited method
  • Missing processes known to be influential on the area of reported research
  • A conclusion drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript
  • For analytical papers examine the sampling report, which is mandated in time-dependent studies. For qualitative research make sure that a systematic data analysis is presented and sufficient descriptive elements with relevant quotes from interviews are listed in addition to the author's narrative.

Research data and visualizations

Once you are satisfied that the methodology is sufficiently robust, look at any information such as figures, tables, or images. Authors may include research data, including data representations to their submission to enable readers to interact and engage more closely with their research after publication. These items should also receive your attention during the Peer-review process.


In the event that you don't detect any major flaws, take a break from the manuscript, giving you time to think. Consider the article from your own perspective and make sure yourself before writing final comments.

3. Structuring your Review:

Your review will help the editorial board to decide whether or not to publish the article. It will also aid the author and allow them to improve their manuscript. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any ad hominem remarks or personal details including your name. Reviewer should explain and support his judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments.

Your recommendation

When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor will likely use for classifying the article:

  • Reject (explain your reasoning in your report)
  • Accept without revision
  • Revise either major or minor. If you are recommending a revision, you must furnish the Corresponding Author with a clear, sound explanation of why this is necessary.

4. After your Review:

Once you have delivered your review, you receive credit ( reward) for your work in your account. Your profile will display your reviewing history and thus demonstrate your input to the Peer- review process as well as detailing your own articles, positions and editorial work. At last, we accept the open door to thank you earnestly in the interest on behalf of the journal, editors and author(s) for the time you have taken to give your valuable contribution to the article.

Reviewer Membership

If you would like to join as a Reviewer for the Featured Journals of Frontier Publications kindly login to the website to submit the membership details and receive the Reviewer Membership Certificate. This certificate will be valid for a period of 2 years from the date of issue of the certificate. The Members have to renew their membership immediately within 1 week after the validity period.

Benifits to Reviewers from Frontier Journals

Reviewing requires the investment of time and certain skills. Being on the Editorial Board or a Reviewer of a Journal is truly productive, pleasant and in fact prestigious which helps in adding more value to the scientific world through the ways and guidelines given by experts in the relevant fields. Though, it is time consuming and often goes unobserved, there are some important rewards that make the Editorial Board Members/Reviewers worthwhile.