Peer review is the foundation of scientific quality at ESSD. This page provides guidance for reviewers on what is expected at each stage of the review process, from receiving an invitation to submitting a final assessment.

Accepting or Declining an Invitation

Upon receiving a review invitation, reviewers should:

• Respond promptly — within 3 days of receiving the invitation
• Carefully consider whether the manuscript falls within their area of expertise before accepting
• Declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting — including manuscripts authored by current or recent collaborators, colleagues at the same institution, or individuals with whom they have a personal or financial relationship
• Decline promptly if unable to complete the review within the agreed timeframe, so the Editorial Office can identify an alternative reviewer

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript or its contents with any third party
• Discuss the manuscript with colleagues without explicit permission from the Editor-in-Chief
• Use unpublished information disclosed in the manuscript for their own research
• Upload any part of the manuscript to AI tools or language models

Confidentiality obligations remain in effect after the review is completed.

Conducting the Review

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript objectively and thoroughly using the ESSD Review Form. The form covers the following dimensions:

• Scope alignment — does the manuscript fall within ESSD's thematic areas
• Originality and novelty of the work
• Significance of content and relevance to the field
• Scientific soundness — methodology, results, and conclusions
• Quality of presentation — structure, clarity, and language
• Ethical concerns — plagiarism, inappropriate self-citation, conflict of interest

When completing the review, reviewers should:

• Assess the manuscript on its scientific merit, not on the basis of the authors' identity, nationality, or institutional affiliation
• Provide specific, evidence-based comments that clearly identify both strengths and weaknesses
• Distinguish between essential revisions — those necessary for acceptance — and suggested improvements
• Avoid vague or unconstructive criticism such as "the manuscript needs improvement" without specifying what and how
• Complete the review within the agreed timeframe — typically 3 weeks from acceptance of the invitation

Completing the Review Form

The ESSD Review Form is divided into two parts:

Ratings (Questions 1–7): These cover scope, originality, significance, presentation, scientific soundness, reader interest, and overall merit. Each is rated Low, Average, or High.

Detailed Assessment (Questions 8–14): These cover introduction, research design, abstract quality, methodology, results, and conclusions. Each is assessed as Yes, Can be improved, Must be improved, or Not Applicable where relevant.

English Language (Question 15): Reviewers assess the language quality and indicate the level of editing required. Reviewers who do not feel qualified to assess English language should select the appropriate option — this does not affect the scientific assessment.

Ethical Checks (Questions 16–19): Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest, flag suspected plagiarism, flag inappropriate self-citations, and note any other ethical concerns.

Overall Recommendation (Question 20): Reviewers select one of the following:

• Accept in present form — the manuscript is ready for publication as submitted
• Accept after minor revision — limited corrections required; no second review needed
• Reconsider after major revision — substantial revisions required; manuscript will undergo a second round of review
• Reject — the manuscript has serious flaws or is not suitable for the journal

Writing Comments

The review form includes two comment fields:

Comments to authors — visible to authors. These should address questions 8–14 specifically and provide clear, constructive, and actionable feedback. All major concerns must be explained here so authors can respond effectively.

Comments to the editor — not visible to authors. Use this field to raise confidential concerns such as suspected misconduct, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or serious ethical issues that should not be communicated directly to the authors.

After Submitting the Review

Following submission of the review, the Editor-in-Chief will make a final decision based on all reviewer reports. Reviewers may be contacted for a second round of review if major revisions are requested. Reviewers will be notified of the final decision as a matter of courtesy.

Recognition

ESSD values the contribution of its reviewers. All reviewers who complete assessments are eligible for recognition through the journal's reviewer acknowledgement program. Details will be communicated by the Editorial Office.