Instructions for Reviewers
Research articles and discussion notes submitted to Organon F are usually evaluated by two anonymous reviewers. The editorial decision-making process depends crucially on reviewers’ reports. Manuscripts are evaluated only with respect to their intellectual content and scientific values such as relevance, topicality, novelty, cogency, conceptual clarity, precision and soundness of argumentation.
The basic principle that governs reviewer assignment is the correspondence between the manuscript’s subject-matter and the reviewer’s current research and publications. We always try to invite internationally recognized scholars in order to guarantee that manuscripts are assessed with due care and quality.
Reviewers are asked to explicitly confirm or reject an invitation from editors to review manuscripts as soon as possible, ideally within 1 week. In the case of accepting the invitation, reviewers are asked to deliver their reports within 8 weeks of obtaining the invitation.
Organon F uses a structured review form to help reviewers focus on the criteria that are crucial for publications in the journal. The review form is available here. It consists of three main sections.
The first section contains several questions (to be answered “yes”, “no”, “I don’t know” or “n/a”) that aim to assess the general aspects of a manuscript, such as its topicality, originality, quality of presentation, soundness of argumentation, the use of relevant literature, etc.
The second section is reserved for the reviewers’ own comments, criticisms and suggestions to authors regarding substantive, linguistic and formal aspects of the manuscript. It is recommended that reviewers build on their responses to answers from the previous section, but they may also raise new issues. Reviewers’ statements contained in the first and second sections will be sent to the author(s).
The third section is designated for reviewers’ confidential comments, addressed to the editors.
Based on the comments contained in the review form, reviewers are to suggest an overall verdict on the manuscript. Reviewers are required to choose one option from the following list:
- “accept” – no changes are required, or a limited number of linguistic or stylistic corrections are needed;
- “accept with minor changes” – some changes are required in order to make the manuscript clearer, better organized or stronger, but hypotheses, data, arguments and conclusions remain generally unchallenged;
- “accept with major changes” – some changes that concern hypotheses, data, arguments or conclusions are required, but the changes do not undermine the overall aim of the manuscript;
- “reject and resubmit” – some changes that concern hypotheses, data, arguments or conclusions are required, but the changes may undermine the overall aim of the manuscript;
- “reject” – no reasonable number of changes would make the manuscript acceptable for publication.
The editorial decision about the manuscript is determined by the recommendations of all reviewers assigned to the manuscript. The process of editorial decision-making is described in the “Editorial Procedure” section.
A review assignment should be declined if, despite our best efforts to invite those whose research corresponds to the manuscript’s topic, the invited scholar does not feel sufficiently qualified to review the manuscript.
A review assignment should also be declined if the invited scholar feels that a serious conflict of interest may arise as a result of reviewing the manuscript. This happens mainly, but not exclusively, when the assigned reviewer:
- is in a close personal relationship (spouse, family member, supervisor, etc.) with the author;
- is positive about the authorship of the manuscript regardless of a close personal relationship;
- feels ideological, ethical or other biases with respect to any part of the content of the manuscript;
- might benefit, in any way that might be deemed problematic, from the manuscript’s being accepted (or rejected) for publication.
Reviewers are required to treat manuscripts as confidential documents, meaning that they are not allowed to share information about them with anyone else unless previously agreed with the editors. This also holds in the case of declining an invitation to review a manuscript. If a reviewer believes that the involvement of a third party would be beneficial for the quality of review, he or she can invite the third party only after obtaining explicit consent from the editors.
The editors are allowed to send authors only those parts of reviewers’ reports that are explicitly addressed to the authors. These parts cannot be disclosed to anyone else unless previously agreed with the reviewers. Parts of reports that are addressed to the editors are strictly confidential and cannot be disclosed to anyone else.
