Reviewer Guide

Provide rigorous, fair, and constructive peer review

A good review helps editors make decisions and helps authors improve the manuscript, even when the recommendation is negative.

Interested in reviewing or editorial service?

Researchers interested in joining a Delvierre reviewer pool or being considered for an editorial role may contact the editorial office.

Email editorial@delvierre.com and include your current CV, ORCID iD, affiliation, and main subject areas. Editorial appointments and reviewer invitations depend on journal needs, expertise, conflicts-of-interest checks, and publisher/editorial review.

Core expectations

Maintain confidentiality and do not circulate the manuscript, reviewer files, or editorial correspondence.
Do not contact the author directly, reveal your identity to the author, or discuss the manuscript outside the editorial system.
Do not post, summarize, or mention the manuscript or your reviewer role on social media, websites, or public forums.
Disclose financial, personal, or academic conflicts of interest.
Accept review invitations only when the topic matches your expertise.
Submit on time or notify the editor promptly if timing changes.
Do not upload confidential manuscript material into public or third-party AI tools without explicit editorial authorization.

Review tone and structure

Start with a concise summary of the paper and overall assessment.
Separate major issues from minor corrections.
Explain why a concern matters and, where possible, how to address it.
Keep comments specific, evidence-based, and professional.

Major comment topics

Study design, method validity, and reproducibility.
Alignment between results and conclusions.
Statistical interpretation and data integrity.
Novelty, significance, and relevance to the journal.

Minor comment topics

Clarity, organization, and writing quality.
Figure and table presentation.
Missing references or citation issues.
Formatting, terminology, and typographic corrections.

Confidentiality and conduct rules

The manuscript and the peer-review process are confidential and must stay inside the editorial system.
Reviewers must not reveal their identity to authors unless the editor and journal policy explicitly allow it.
Reviewers must not claim publicly that they reviewed, verified, or recommended publication of a manuscript.
Questions for authors should be routed only through the editor and reviewer form.

Integrity concerns

Flag suspected plagiarism, image manipulation, or fabricated data.
Note missing ethics approval, consent, or permissions where applicable.
Avoid requesting unnecessary citation of your own work.

Generative AI rules for reviewers

Do not upload manuscripts, reviewer packages, figures, data, or confidential correspondence into public or third-party AI tools.
Do not use AI to make the recommendation, write unverified criticism, or replace your own expert assessment.
Report suspected undisclosed AI text use, fabricated references, image manipulation, AI-generated figures, or altered visual evidence to the editor.
AI-generated or AI-altered images are not permitted in submissions unless the research is explicitly about AI methods and the editor has approved the documented method.