Reviewer Resources & Guidelines

Become an SLAS Discovery Reviewer

Become an SLAS Technology Reviewer

New volunteers are encouraged to complete Elsevier’s free Peer Review Certification course.

Invited reviewers should decline invitations if they have any potential conflicts of interest with the author, the author’s affiliated organization(s) and/or the manuscript’s subject matter.

Reviewers who accept invitations are asked to follow these while assessing the manuscript's scientific merit and suitability for publication.

Content

  1. Is the manuscript within the journal’s defined scope?
    • Does the paper's topic align with the aims and areas of focus outlined by the journal?
       
  2. Is the subject matter relevant and of interest to the journal's readership?
    • Does the paper address a timely, important or novel topic for the SLAS audience?
       
  3. Does the manuscript report a clear and identifiable advance in knowledge?
    • Does the research offer new insights or contributions to the field that are distinguishable from previous work?
       
  4. Has this work and its findings, or a significant part, been previously published?
    • Can you verify that the content has not been published by searching databases like MEDLINE or Google Scholar?
    • If so, are there any concerns about plagiarism or redundant publication?
       
  5. Are the title and abstract an accurate reflection of the manuscript’s content?
    • Do they clearly convey the main findings and significance of the paper, providing a good summary of what the reader can expect?
       
  6. Are the procedures and methods clearly described and reproducible?
    • Is the methodology detailed enough that another researcher with expertise in the field could replicate the study?
    • Are any critical details missing?
       
  7. Are the conclusions well-supported by the data and analyses presented?
    • Are the conclusions logical, sound and based on the evidence provided?
    • Do they adequately address the research questions posed?
       
  8. Are the references to prior work relevant, comprehensive and up to date?
    • Does the manuscript appropriately cite existing literature?
    • Are there any key studies or references that are missing?

Presentation

  1. Is the manuscript well-organized and clearly written?
    • Is the writing clear, concise, and easy to follow?
    • Does the paper follow a logical structure that enhances the reader's understanding of the research?
       
  2. Are all figures and tables relevant and properly presented?
    • Do the figures and tables support the text and provide valuable insights?
    • Are they clear, well-labeled and properly formatted?
       
  3. Reviewers are not required to comment on grammar and punctuation.
    • Instead of focusing on grammatical errors, reviewers are encouraged to suggest changes that could improve clarity, eliminate ambiguity or enhance the precision of the language used.

Ethics

  1. Confidentiality:
    • Manuscripts under review are confidential and should not be shared or discussed with anyone without the explicit permission of the Editor-in-Chief and SLAS Publishing Manager.
       
  2. Anonymity of Reviewers:
    • The identity of reviewers remains anonymous. A reviewer may only disclose their identity to the author with the express permission of the Editor-in-Chief and SLAS Publishing Manager.

General

  1. Ensure the appropriate manuscript category is selected by the author.
    • If you believe the selected category is not the best fit for the manuscript, please recommend a more appropriate category.
       
  2. Ensure adherence to the journal’s guidelines.
  3. Return assessments by the specified deadline.
    • If you anticipate difficulty meeting the deadline, please inform the editor as soon as possible to allow for alternate arrangements.
       
  4. Provide constructive, respectful feedback.
    • Your comments will be shared with the author to guide revisions.  Be honest, but courteous. Offer constructive criticism to the authors that helps improve the manuscript. Critique the manuscript, not the author.
       
  5. Use a separate note for confidential comments to the editor.
    • If you have feedback meant solely for the editor, please include it in a separate note, apart from the comments shared with the author.

10 Tips for Manuscript Reviewers