Guidelines for Reviewers

Guidelines for Reviewers

EAJS relies on members of the scientific research community to assess the validity of articles under consideration through peer review.

Invitation to Review

EAJS editors select potential reviewers based on their expertise in research areas relevant to the manuscript under consideration. Reviewer invitations are sent by email from the journal's Editorial Manager submission system. Use the links in the invitation email to accept or decline, or check the “New Reviewer Invitations” folder on your Reviewer Main Menu screen in Editorial Manager. Accept an invitation only if you have the knowledge, time and objectivity necessary to provide an unbiased assessment of the research. In agreeing to complete a review, you also give permission to publish your review under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY license.

Our Peer Review Process

PLOS ONE practices single-blind peer review by default, but offers opportunities for authors and reviewers to participate in signed and published peer review.

Our peer review model


Single-blind peer review

During the peer review process you will know the authors’ names, but your name will not be shared. Your review will appear in the editorial decision letter where it can be read by the authors and other reviewers.


Signed peer review

You can choose to sign your name to your review when you submit it. Remember, if you sign your name the authors and other reviewers of the manuscript will see it. If the authors choose to publish their peer review history your name will accompany your comments alongside the published article.



If the authors subsequently choose to transfer their manuscript to another  journal your review will accompany it. You may hear from editors at another HU journal for re-review. Reviewers for any HU journal should be willing to have their reviews considered by the editors of another HU journal.


Published peer review history

If the authors decide to publish their peer review history, the editorial decision letter, including your review, will appear alongside the published article. Your name will not appear unless you choose to sign your review.

Best practices for reviewers


Declaring competing interests

competing interest is anything that interferes with or could be perceived as potentially interfering with, a thorough and objective assessment of a manuscript. Common examples of competing interests may include:

  • A recent or current collaboration with any of the authors
  • Direct competition or a history of scientific conflict with any of the authors
  • An opportunity to profit financially from the work

Do not accept a review assignment if you have a competing interest, or don’t feel able to give an objective assessment. If you’re unsure whether your relationship qualifies as a competing interest, contact the journal office for advice. If we ask you to complete the review anyway, be sure to declare the competing interest when you submit your review.


Crediting collaborators

Co-reviewing is a great way to gain peer review experience under the mentorship of an experienced reviewer and we encourage this collaboration. If you had help completing the review you must share your collaborator’s name with the journal when you submit the review, either by entering it in question 2 under the 'Confidential comments to Editor' section, or via email. Be careful not to include your collaborator’s name in the text of the review itself. Competing interests and confidentiality policies apply to all reviewers.



Keep manuscripts and correspondence confidential and do not share information about submissions with any one else unless previously agreed with the editor. We expect that reviewers will not make use of any material or take advantage of any information they gain through the peer review process.


Reviewing a manuscript you’ve previously reviewed

If you reviewed the article at another journal, consider the manuscript as a new submission unless instructed otherwise. Keep in mind that it may have been revised since the last time you evaluated it, and  criteria for publication may differ from those of the other journal. When you submit your review, let the editor know that you reviewed a previous version of the manuscript at another journal.


Time to review

Aim to complete your review within 10 days. If you need more time to perform the review, please email us as soon as possible.

Receiving credit

In choosing to volunteer as a peer reviewer for EAJS, you are helping to support free and open access to rigorous research. We couldn’t be more grateful!


ORCID Reviewer Credit

Link your EJAS reviewer account to your ORCID record. Set up syncing to have reviewer activity automatically posted to your ORCID profile review activity. This record will confirm that you completed a review for the journal, but won’t publish the content of your review.