Guidelines for peer reviewers
At Taylor & Francis, every journal depends on the hard work of reviewers like you, who test and refine each article before publication. We work to establish and sustain peer review integrity by making sure that you have the right resources to carry out your peer review task efficiently and effectively.
The review process varies from journal to journal, but this peer review guide will give you an overview of what you can expect as a reviewer for a Taylor & Francis journal.
Before you review
Before you agree to review for a journal, it is your professional responsibility to consider the following:
Are you aware of, and able to follow the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers? Please read the ethical guidelines outlined below.
Do you understand the type of peer review used by the journal?
Are you aware of how to submit your review? For most journals, you will complete a form online which may consist of structured questions and/or free text boxes. But in some cases, you may need to email your report to the editor.
Do you have any conflicts of interest? If so, make the editor aware immediately.
Can you complete the review in the allotted time? If you may struggle to meet the deadline, please let the editor know, so they can inform the author.
Is this your first time reviewing, or would you like to refresh your skills? Please take some time to go through our reviewer training and resources.
Taylor & Francis recommend that reviewers also adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers
Peer reviewers must follow these ethical guidelines when reviewing for Taylor & Francis journal articles:
Reviewers must give unbiased consideration to each manuscript submitted. They should judge each on its merits, without regard to race, religion, nationality, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).
Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest before agreeing to review a manuscript. This includes any relationship with the author(s) that may bias their review.
Reviewers must keep the peer review process confidential. They must not share information or correspondence about a manuscript with anyone outside of the peer review process without the explicit permission of the editor.
They must not enter unpublished manuscript files, images or information into databases or tools that do not guarantee confidentiality, are accessible by the public and/or may store or use this information for their own purposes (for example, generative AI tools like ChatGPT).
Reviewers must prepare their report by themselves, unless they have permission from the journal to involve another person. They must also not impersonate others during the review process.
Reviewers must not use artificial intelligence tools to generate manuscript review reports, including LLM based tools like ChatGPT.
Reviewers should provide a constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and appropriately substantial peer review report. Reviewers are responsible for ensuring any references included within their report are accurate and verifiable.
Reviewers must avoid making statements in their report which might be interpreted as questioning any person’s reputation.
Reviewers should make all reasonable effort to submit their report and recommendation on time. They should inform the editor if this is not possible.
Reviewers should call to the journal editor’s attention any significant similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or submitted manuscripts of which they are aware.
How to write a peer review report
Here’s a step-by-step guide that will give you an organized process when writing your peer review report. A proper process will help you maintain the quality and integrity of the research published in your field. So, when you write a peer review report for a manuscript, this guide will help you know what you should include in your comments, what you should leave out, and how you should structure your review.
Make sure you use this guide outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and authors to understand your report. This will also help you keep your comments organized.
Follow this step-by-step guide to help you review a manuscript and make your recommendation to the editor.
When authors make revisions to their article, they are asked to include a list of changes and any comments for the reviewers. The revised version may be assessed by the editor if only minor revisions were requested or may be returned to the original reviewers if available.
You will then be asked to affirm whether the revisions are satisfactory.
I still have questions
Please read our extensive frequently asked questions for answers to common questions on reviewing a manuscript.