For Reviewers

InformedLens Journals

---

Why Review for InformedLens Journals?

Reviewing for InformedLens Journals is more than a service to the scholarly community - it is a genuine professional investment. Here is what you gain as a reviewer.

Ready to join the reviewer pool? Register and select Reviewer as your role. + Register as a Reviewer Log In to Dashboard

---

1. The Role of the Reviewer

Peer review is the foundation of academic publishing. At InformedLens Journals, reviewers are not gatekeepers - they are constructive scholarly partners who help authors strengthen their work and help the journal maintain rigorous, credible standards.

When you review for InformedLens Journals, you contribute directly to the quality of scholarship in your field. Your feedback shapes what gets published, and equally important, helps authors whose work needs development to improve it meaningfully.

InformedLens Journals values reviewers who: engage thoughtfully with the manuscript, give specific and actionable feedback, treat authors with professional respect, and complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.

---

2. Who Can Review for InformedLens Journals

InformedLens Journals invites reviewers from across all disciplines within its scope. You do not need to be at a senior academic rank to review - what matters is subject expertise and the ability to evaluate research quality fairly.

Eligibility

• Hold at least a postgraduate degree (Master's or above) in a relevant field
• Have demonstrable expertise in the manuscript's topic area
• Have no conflict of interest with the authors or the work
• Be available to complete the review within the agreed timeframe

Become a Reviewer

Register at informedlens.com and select Reviewer as your role during registration. You can indicate your areas of expertise so the editorial team can match you to appropriate manuscripts.

Already registered as an author? Log in and update your profile to add the Reviewer role. You do not need to create a new account.

---

3. The Review Process Step by Step

InformedLens Journals operates a double-blind peer review process. You will not know the authors' identities, and they will not know yours. All communication goes through the editorial system.

1Invitation received - You receive an email inviting you to review a manuscript. The invitation includes the title and abstract so you can assess expertise fit and any conflict of interest.

2Accept or decline - Respond within 5 business days. If you decline, please suggest an alternative reviewer if possible.

3Access the manuscript - Log in to your reviewer dashboard at informedlens.com or email info@informedlens.com to download the anonymised manuscript and review form.

4Complete your review - Submit through the system within the agreed deadline (typically 3 weeks from acceptance). Complete the structured review form and upload annotated comments if needed.

5Recommendation submitted - Your review and recommendation go to the handling editor, who makes the final decision taking all reviewer reports into account.

6Revised manuscript (if applicable) - If the manuscript is revised and returned, the editor may ask you to assess the revised version. You will receive a notification if this applies.

Confidentiality: The manuscript you receive is confidential. Do not share it, cite it, or discuss it outside the review process. Do not use any ideas or data from the manuscript in your own work until it is published.

---

4. Conflict of Interest

You must decline a review invitation if a conflict of interest exists - any relationship or circumstance that could, or could appear to, compromise your impartiality.

Decline the review if you:

• Are a co-author, collaborator, or close colleague of any of the authors
• Are a direct academic supervisor or supervisee of any author
• Have a personal or financial relationship with any author that could bias your evaluation
• Can identify the authors from the manuscript content - for example, through a known dataset, institution, or ongoing study
• Have a strong prior position (positive or negative) on the specific claims in the manuscript
• Work at the same institution as any of the authors

When in doubt, declare it. Contact the editor before proceeding. It is always better to flag a potential conflict early than to have it identified after the review is submitted.

---

5. What to Evaluate

Your review should address the following dimensions. Use your scholarly judgement about what matters most for the specific submission in front of you.

Dimension	Key Questions to Consider
Originality and Contribution	Does this work make a genuine new contribution - empirically, theoretically, or methodologically? Is the research question novel and significant?
Fit with Journal Scope	Does the manuscript engage meaningfully with the journal's thematic focus? Is it appropriate for a multidisciplinary audience?
Literature and Theoretical Grounding	Is the relevant literature adequately reviewed and critically engaged? Is the theoretical or conceptual framework appropriate and clearly articulated?
Methodology	Is the research design appropriate? Are the sampling, data collection, and analytical methods sound and transparently reported?
Results and Analysis	Are findings clearly presented? Are tables, figures, and statistics accurate and properly interpreted? Is the analysis rigorous?
Discussion and Conclusions	Do the conclusions follow from the evidence? Are limitations honestly acknowledged? Are the practical and theoretical implications clearly articulated?
Clarity and Writing Quality	Is the manuscript clearly written and logically structured? Is the language precise and appropriate for an academic audience?
Ethics and Integrity	Are ethical considerations addressed (e.g., participant consent, data integrity, authorship)? Are there any concerns about plagiarism or data misrepresentation?

---

6. Making Your Recommendation

At the end of your review, you will select one of the following recommendations. Be honest - your recommendation should reflect your genuine assessment of the manuscript's quality and potential.

Recommendation	When to Use It
Accept	The manuscript is publishable as submitted or requires only very minor typographical corrections. Use this sparingly - it is rare for a first submission to require no changes at all.
Minor Revision	The manuscript is broadly sound but requires small improvements - clarifications, additional references, tightening of arguments, or presentation edits. You are confident the authors can address these without a full re-review.
Major Revision	The manuscript has real potential but requires substantial work - additional analysis, a stronger theoretical framework, significant rewriting, or addressing fundamental methodological concerns. You are willing to re-review the revised version.
Reject	The manuscript has fundamental problems that cannot be resolved through revision - for example, a flawed research design, a lack of original contribution, or content outside the journal's scope. Rejection should be accompanied by clear, specific reasons.

Remember: Your recommendation is advisory. The handling editor makes the final decision, sometimes consulting the Editor-in-Chief and weighing input from multiple reviewers. A split between reviewer recommendations is not uncommon and does not mean one review was wrong.

---

7. Writing a Constructive Review

A good review is specific, fair, and useful - to both the editor and the author. Structure your report clearly so both parties can follow your reasoning.

Suggested Review Structure

Summary (2-4 sentences)

Briefly describe the manuscript in your own words - the research question, approach, and main findings. This confirms to the editor that you have read and understood the work, and helps authors see how their paper reads to an external expert.

Major Comments

List the most significant concerns - issues that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. Refer to page numbers, sections, or specific claims. Explain why each issue matters, not just that it exists.

Minor Comments

List smaller issues - unclear sentences, missing references, labelling errors, grammatical concerns. Number each point for easy reference by the author.

Confidential Comments to the Editor (optional)

Use this field for concerns you do not want shared with the authors - for example, suspicions about data integrity, suspected identity of the authors, or a strong recommendation to reject that you prefer to explain privately.

Tone and Language

• Write as you would want someone to write to you - critically but respectfully
• Critique the work, not the author
• Avoid dismissive or condescending language - even for manuscripts you recommend rejecting
• Be direct: vague comments like "the methodology needs improving" are less useful than "the sample selection criteria are not clearly justified - please explain how institutions were selected and whether this introduces selection bias"
• Avoid making your recommendation obvious in the comments visible to authors - that is the editor's role to communicate

A useful test: Before submitting your review, ask yourself - if I were the author receiving this feedback, would I know exactly what to do to improve the manuscript? If the answer is no, add more specificity.

---

8. Timeframes and Deadlines

Action	Expected Timeframe
Respond to review invitation (accept or decline)	5 business days
Submit completed review	3 weeks from acceptance
Re-review of revised manuscript (if requested)	2 weeks from receipt

If you are unable to meet a deadline, please notify the editorial team as early as possible. Timely review is one of the most important contributions you can make - delays affect authors who are waiting, sometimes for months.

Unable to complete the review? It is far better to decline early and suggest an alternative than to miss the deadline without notice. The editorial team understands that reviewers are busy - just let us know as soon as possible.

---

9. Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities

Confidentiality

Everything about the manuscript - its content, existence, and your review - is strictly confidential. Do not discuss the manuscript with colleagues, share it, or cite it in your own work before it is published. Do not use ideas or data from the manuscript for your own research.

Integrity

Your review must be your own independent assessment. Do not use AI writing tools to generate your review - reviewers are expected to bring their own scholarly judgement, expertise, and critical thinking. The use of AI to write or substantially draft a peer review report is not permitted.

Fairness

Evaluate the manuscript on its scholarly merit alone. Do not allow the geographic origin, institutional affiliation, language style, or perceived identity of the authors to influence your assessment. InformedLens Journals is committed to equitable peer review across all scholarly communities.

Constructive Intent

The goal of peer review is to improve scholarship - not to protect disciplinary territory or advance your own research agenda. Do not request that authors cite your own work unless it is genuinely relevant and missing from a significant gap in the literature.

Reporting Concerns

If you suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or any other ethical breach, report it to the editorial team immediately via the confidential comments field or by email. Do not raise these concerns directly with the authors.

Use of AI in peer review: Reviewers must not use AI tools (such as ChatGPT or similar) to write, generate, or substantially draft their review reports. Doing so violates the confidentiality of the manuscript and undermines the integrity of the review process. Brief use of AI for grammar checking of your own written comments is permitted, provided the substantive assessment remains entirely your own.

---

10. Reviewer Recognition

InformedLens Journals recognises that peer review is a significant investment of time and expertise. We acknowledge our reviewers in the following ways:

• Annual acknowledgement - Reviewers who complete at least one review in a calendar year are listed in the annual reviewer acknowledgement published on the journal website (with their consent)
• Reviewer certificate - On request, the editorial office will issue a formal certificate of peer review contribution for use in academic records, promotion applications, or grant reporting
• Priority consideration - Active reviewers who submit their own manuscripts receive priority in reviewer matching, ensuring their work benefits from equally engaged peer review

Publons / Web of Science Reviewer Recognition: InformedLens Journals supports reviewer recognition through Publons (now integrated with Web of Science). If you would like your review logged to your Publons profile, follow the instructions in your reviewer dashboard after submitting your report.

---

11. Peer Review Policy

InformedLens Journals is committed to a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review process. This policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to the journal and governs the conduct of editors, reviewers, and authors throughout the review process. It is aligned with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

11.1 Type of Peer Review

InformedLens Journals operates a double-blind peer review model for all submitted manuscripts. This means:

• Authors do not know the identity of their reviewers
• Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors
• Both parties are protected from potential bias throughout the evaluation process

Authors are responsible for ensuring their manuscript is fully anonymised before submission - removing names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and any self-identifying references from the main manuscript file.

11.2 Screening Before Review

All manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening before being sent to peer reviewers. The editorial team assesses:

• Scope - Does the manuscript fall within the journal's thematic focus?
• Originality - Is the work original and not currently under review or published elsewhere?
• Plagiarism and AI detection - Using Turnitin, manuscripts are screened for a similarity index of 20% or below and an AI-generated content score of 15% or below. Manuscripts exceeding either threshold are returned to authors without review.
• Minimum quality threshold - Does the manuscript meet a basic standard of scholarly writing and structure to warrant external review?

Manuscripts that do not pass receive a desk rejection with reasons communicated to the corresponding author within 5-7 business days of submission.

11.3 The Review Process Stages

Manuscripts that pass desk screening are assigned to a handling editor, who identifies and invites a minimum of two independent peer reviewers.

Stage	Description	Indicative Timeframe
Desk screening	Scope, quality, plagiarism, and AI detection check by the editorial team.	5-7 business days
Reviewer invitation	Handling editor identifies and invites qualified reviewers. Reviewers have 5 business days to accept or decline.	Up to 1 week
Peer review	Each reviewer independently evaluates the manuscript and submits a structured report with a recommendation.	3 weeks from acceptance
Editorial decision	Handling editor consolidates reviewer reports and issues a decision: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.	Within 1 week of review receipt
Revision (if required)	Authors revise and resubmit with a point-by-point response to reviewer comments.	Agreed with author
Re-review (if required)	Revised manuscripts assessed by the original reviewer(s) or the handling editor.	2 weeks from resubmission
Final decision	Editor-in-Chief gives final approval for acceptance and publication.	Within 1 week of re-review

Target turnaround: InformedLens Journals aims to communicate an initial decision to authors within 4-6 weeks of submission.

11.4 Reviewer Selection Criteria

Handling editors select reviewers on the basis of: demonstrated expertise in the manuscript's subject area or methodology; absence of conflict of interest; prior review performance and reliability; and geographical and institutional diversity where possible. Authors may suggest up to three preferred reviewers and may request the exclusion of specific individuals, with reasons.

11.5 Reviewer Independence and Confidentiality

Reviewers must conduct their assessment independently. They must not: discuss the manuscript with colleagues without prior editor approval; share the manuscript outside the review process; retain a copy after review; use ideas or findings in their own work prior to publication; or attempt to identify the authors through the manuscript content or metadata.

11.6 Reviewer Decisions and Outcomes

Reviewers submit one of four recommendations - Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. The handling editor makes the final decision taking all reports into account. Where reviewer recommendations conflict, the editor may seek a third reviewer's opinion or make a reasoned editorial decision. Reviewer recommendations are advisory - the final decision rests with the handling editor and Editor-in-Chief.

11.7 Author Responsibilities During Review

• Authors must respond to revision requests within the agreed timeframe
• Revisions must be accompanied by a point-by-point response letter addressing every reviewer comment - stating clearly what was changed, where, and why
• Authors must not attempt to identify or contact reviewers directly
• Authors must notify the editorial office immediately if they discover an error in a submitted or under-review manuscript

11.8 Publishing Ethics and Integrity

InformedLens Journals follows the ethical guidelines of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and expects all parties to uphold the highest standards of scholarly integrity. The following constitute serious ethical violations:

Violation	Description
Plagiarism	Presenting another's work, ideas, or data as your own without proper attribution.
Self-plagiarism	Reproducing substantial portions of your own previously published work without disclosure.
Data fabrication / falsification	Inventing, manipulating, or selectively reporting data or results.
Duplicate submission	Submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal.
Ghost / guest authorship	Listing individuals who did not contribute, or omitting those who did.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest	Failing to declare financial, personal, or institutional relationships that could bias the work.
Undisclosed AI usage	Using AI writing tools without declaration, or submitting AI-generated text above permitted thresholds.
Reviewer misconduct	Breaching confidentiality, misusing manuscript content, or providing dishonest evaluations.

Consequences of ethical violations: Confirmed violations may result in manuscript rejection or retraction, notification of the author's or reviewer's institution, and reporting to COPE or other relevant bodies. InformedLens Journals maintains a zero-tolerance approach to research misconduct.

11.9 Corrections and Retractions

If errors are identified in a published article, InformedLens Journals will take appropriate corrective action:

• Correction (Erratum): For minor errors that do not affect the conclusions of the work
• Retraction: For major errors, fabricated data, plagiarism, or duplicate publication that undermines the integrity of the findings
• Expression of Concern: Where an investigation is ongoing and readers should be aware of potential issues

All corrections and retractions are published openly and linked to the original article. Authors are encouraged to notify the editorial office promptly if they identify errors in their published work.

11.10 Appeals

Authors who believe their manuscript has been rejected in error may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals must be submitted in writing within 30 days of the rejection decision and must include: a clear statement of the grounds for appeal; a point-by-point response to the reviewer and editor comments; and any additional evidence or clarification relevant to the decision.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, whose decision is final. Appeals based solely on disagreement with the reviewers' scholarly judgement, without new substantive arguments, will not be upheld.

---

12. Reviewer Checklist

Before submitting your review, confirm all of the following:

• ☐ I have no conflict of interest with the authors or the work
• ☐ I have read the full manuscript carefully
• ☐ My summary accurately reflects what the manuscript does
• ☐ My major comments are specific, referenced by section or page, and explain why each issue matters
• ☐ My minor comments are clearly numbered and actionable
• ☐ My tone is professional and constructive throughout
• ☐ I have not identified myself in the review (double-blind process)
• ☐ I have not used AI tools to write or generate my review
• ☐ Any concerns about ethics or integrity have been noted in the confidential comments field
• ☐ I have submitted my review before or on the agreed deadline

---

Questions about your review? If you have any questions at any point in the review process - contact the editorial team. Email: info@informedlens.com Reviewer portal: informedlens.com