Guidelines for Reviewers

Becoming a peer reviewer: why and how

Reviewing for the BSR Journals allows you to contribute to the advancement of rheumatology while learning about the latest developments in the field before everyone else.

Add your name to those who are safeguarding the dissemination of innovative research through Rheumatology and Rheumatology Advances in Practice. Join our community of peer reviewers by sending a list of your expertise areas to our Editorial Office, at [email protected].

The Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service (formerly Publons) is active on Rheumatology and  Rheumatology in Advances in Practice. Get credit for your reviewing work; what are you waiting for?

Our peer review process outlined

Our peer review process is a single-blind process; reviewers know the authors' identities but the reviewers themselves remain anonymous. Please note that if you accept you may be asked to review revisions of the same manuscripts as well.

As a reviewer, you will be invited by e-mail to review a journal article. The e-mail will come embedded with hyperlink invitation responses, and will include an abstract. The full paper will become available once a reviewer agrees to review, and can be found in your Reviewer Centre on ScholarOne Manuscripts.

We ask that reviewers respond to the invitation, either yes or no, within 48 hours. We understand that reviewers are busy and should only accept the invitation to review if they are able to review the manuscript within the allocated fourteen working days. However, please do contact the Editorial Office if you would like an extension.

Please note that some papers submitted to Rheumatology may receive a decision to transfer the paper to our sister journal, Rheumatology Advances in Practice. This decision will be based on whether the scope of the paper is more suitable for this journal. The author is able to decide whether to agree or not with this transfer. If they agree, then your peer review comments will be transferred along with the paper and you may be contacted by the Editors of Rheumatology Advances in Practice in order to re-review the paper after revision.

Before agreeing to review

As a reviewer, your task is to critically and constructively judge the content of a manuscript. You must also inform the Editorial Office if you think you have a conflict of interest. This could be:

• Your PhD student or PhD advisor is an author on the paper;
• Family relations;
• People at your current institution
• Financial interest in the outcome of the research (past, present or future), which could be in the form of employment, research funding, stocks and shares, consulting fees, etc.
• Collaborators in the past two years.
• Political or religious beliefs that may be validated or disputed in the manuscript.

If you have reason to believe that the material is not original or has been plagiarised, please alert the handling editor or the Editorial Office as soon as possible. Please see the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) policy statement on conflicts of interest for more information on different types of conflicts.

Submitting a reviewer report

Please submit your report through the online submission system. If you need any assistance, please contact the Editorial Office: [email protected].

The reviewer report

The Editor uses the information provided in a review to help make an informed decision on the suitability of a manuscript for the Journal. There are two sections to the reviewer report:

1. Tick box questions related to the quality, originality and relevance of the manuscript, and whether the current format is appropriate (please see the Author Guidelines for article types).
2. Free text boxes in which reviewers can write confidential comments to the Editor and comments to the author.

Comments/suggestions made to the author:

• These should be suitable for sending to the author. Use these comments to make constructive suggestions, seek clarification on any unclear points, and ask for further elaboration.
• Confirm whether you feel the subject of the paper is sufficiently interesting to justify its length. If you recommend shortening, show specific areas where you think it's required.
• It's not the reviewer's job to edit the paper for English, but it is helpful if you correct the English where the technical meaning is unclear.
• A referee may disagree with the author's opinions, but should allow them to stand, provided their evidence supports it.
• Remember that authors will welcome positive feedback as well as constructive criticism.
• Please ensure that your name is not included in the comments to the authors or any recommendation for publication (which should only be included in the confidential comments to the Editor section).

When reviewing a paper please consider the following:

• Is the work original and of a high quality?
• Is the paper concise, does it read well and make sense? Could it be shortened? If so, please make some recommendations.
• Does the paper fit the scope of the journal?
• Is the design of the study appropriate and does it contain appropriate ethical approval and patient consent?
• Are the data and statistics correct and appropriate, and are all values given defined?
• Does the abstract accurately summarize the study?
• Are the methods detailed enough for the reproduction of experiments?
• Has the research been carried out ethically?
• Do the results answer the research question?
• Are the conclusions clear and based on the data presented?
• You do not need to correct the English, however, if a paper is difficult to understand due to grammatical errors, please mention this in your report.

Any additional comments that you wish the Editor to consider when making a decision should be included in the confidential information.

Once you've read the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor about publication. The specific decision types used by a journal will vary, but the key decisions are:

• Accept. The paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
• Minor revision. The paper will be ready for publication after light revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author makes.
• Major revision. The paper needs substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.
• Reject. The paper isn't suitable for publication with this journal, or the revisions are too fundamental for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.

Confidentiality

Reviewers should treat any manuscript sent to them for review as confidential and it should not be discussed with anyone who is not directly involved in the review process, or shared with/submitted to a Large Language Model or AI tool. If you consult colleagues, inform them that the information is confidential and let the Editor know that a colleague has been consulted. Once your review has been completed, reviewers must return/destroy/erase the manuscript.

Please see the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers for more information.

Further resources for peer reviewers

Still want to learn more about how the process works? Listen to Dr Marwan Bukhari, former Editor-in-Chief for Rheumatology, discuss everything peer review. You can also sign up for the BSR Peer Reviewer Masterclass, which is free of charge for BSR members.

Really recommend this Peer Review Masterclass if you are a #BSR member, such useful training with great practical tips and examples I will take forward for my next peer reviews & sharing with other #PhD students who often feel inadequate or ill-equipped to conduct #peerreview!

User Feedback via Twitter