For Reviewers

Peer review is how SSG journals decide what to publish. It also helps authors improve their work. This page explains what we ask of reviewers, and how to write a useful review. The rules behind it are in our Peer Review Policy and Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

Accept only if all of these are true:

• Expertise: the manuscript is within your area of expertise. If you can judge only part of it, such as the statistics or the numerical modelling, tell the editor.
• Time: you can return your report by the deadline, usually about one month. If you need longer, ask before accepting.
• No conflict of interest: none of the following applies to you, or you have declared it to the editor, who decides whether you may review:
  • You work at the same institution as any author.
  • You have co-authored, collaborated, or shared a grant with any author in the past three years (declare it; it does not always prevent a review).
  • You have a close personal relationship with, or a dispute with, any author.
  • You could gain or lose financially from the publication.
  • You have any other interest that could affect, or appear to affect, your judgement.

If you are unsure, tell the editorial office before accepting. If you reviewed the same manuscript for another journal, tell the editor. This is not automatically a conflict.

• The manuscript, and everything in it, is confidential until it is published. Do not share it, discuss it, or use its content in your own work.
• Do not upload the manuscript, or any part of it, or your review, into ChatGPT or any other generative AI tool. You may use such tools only to polish the language of your own report, and without including any text from the manuscript (see our Generative AI Policy).
• If you would like a junior colleague to help, ask the editor first and name them. They must follow the same rules.
• Destroy your copies of the manuscript once the review is complete.

You will not see the authors' names, and they will not see yours. Do not try to identify the authors. Do not reveal your identity in your comments or in the file properties of any attachment. If you think you know who the authors are, and it creates a conflict of interest, tell the editor.

• Start with a short summary of the manuscript and its main claims, in your own words. This shows the editor how you understood it.
• List major issues: problems that affect whether the conclusions are valid. For each one, explain why it matters and what would resolve it.
• List minor issues: clarity, presentation, missing details, typographical errors.
• Be specific: refer to page, line, figure, or equation numbers.
• Be professional and constructive. Comment on the work, not the authors. Avoid sarcastic or dismissive language.
• Suggest references only where they are needed. Never request citations to your own work, or to the journal, unless they are directly relevant and necessary. Requests made to increase citation counts are misconduct.
• Make a confidential recommendation to the editor: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. The decision belongs to the editor. Your reasons matter more than your recommendation.
• Use the confidential comments box for concerns you want only the editor to see, such as suspected misconduct.

Tell the editor straight away, through the confidential comments, if you suspect any of the following:

• Plagiarism, or substantial overlap with other work
• Fabricated or manipulated data or images
• Duplicate submission or duplicate publication
• Missing ethics approval or consent
• Signs of paper mill activity: generic text, odd phrasing, references that do not match the content, or recycled figures

Do not contact the authors, and do not investigate the matter yourself. The editor will follow our misconduct procedure.

When a revision comes back to you, check whether the authors have answered each of your comments, either by changing the manuscript or by explaining clearly why they did not. Do not raise new major issues unless they come from the changes made, or are essential.

• Every reviewer who completes a review receives a reviewer certificate on request.
• You may list your review activity in your own researcher profile, without revealing details of the manuscript.
• Reviewers who give consistently thorough reviews may be invited to join the editorial board.

SSG does not pay reviewers, and does not give them rewards, points, or discounts.

Researchers with a doctoral degree, or equivalent research experience, and recent peer-reviewed publications in a journal's subject area are welcome to volunteer. Create an account in the submission system, select "Reviewer" as a role, and list your areas of expertise together with links to your ORCID, Scopus, or Google Scholar profile. Editors invite reviewers based on how well their expertise matches each manuscript.