Assessing a New Manuscript

Here are some key aspects to consider when evaluating a new submission.

1. Do you have any competing interests that would prevent you from handling the manuscript?

If you have a competing interest related to the manuscript or any of the authors, please declare this to the editorial office upon the first assignment, and the manuscript will be reassigned. More information on identifying competing interests can be found in our editorial policies.

2. Does the manuscript appear sufficiently robust to proceed to peer review?

If you do not wish to proceed, please provide comments to the authors explaining your decision to reject the manuscript without peer review. If you believe the manuscript could be revised to address your concerns, you may request that the authors make revisions before it is sent for peer review.

3. Is the submission within the scope of your journal?

The full scope of the journal can be found on your journal’s “About” page. If a manuscript is determined to be out of scope but still scientifically valid, it will usually be sent to the transfer desk upon rejection. Our editorial staff will then contact the author to identify a more suitable journal. Occasionally, you may select a specific alternative journal for transfer.

4. Does the manuscript fulfill the journal’s interest criteria?

Journals have varying criteria for interest. Some focus on articles that present significant advancements or research with a broad impact.

5. Is the article type appropriate for the content?

You can find the available article types for your journal in its submission guidelines. Occasionally, a submission may not align with one of the designated article types, but it could still be suitable for peer review. In such cases, please inform us, and we will provide further guidance.

6. Does the manuscript adhere to the journal’s editorial policies?

All manuscripts must comply with Gleam Publishing’s editorial policies. If you have any concerns regarding a manuscript, please discuss them with your journal contact or inform the editorial office so that we can investigate further. The following points should be particularly considered before submitting a manuscript for peer review:

• Do you perceive any ethical issues with the manuscript?
• Does the manuscript include consent if it contains data related to individual patients?
• Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for data collection and reporting?
• If the manuscript reports the results of a clinical trial, does it include a trial registration number?
• Are there any concerns regarding plagiarism or duplicate publication?

Contact us for further information regarding Gleam Publishing’s editorial policies and additional resources.

7. Does the quality of the English language affect your ability to evaluate the scientific content?

If you receive a new manuscript that requires English copyediting before you can adequately assess its scientific content, you may request a pre-review revision from the authors.

Finding Peer Reviewers

We aim to make decisions on all submitted manuscripts, including commissioned content, based on the advice of at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers should be well-qualified, have a significant and steady publication record, and possess in-depth knowledge of the subject matter and methodology to provide an informed and unbiased assessment of a manuscript. Some manuscripts may require additional independent reviewers, particularly if they are multidisciplinary or require specialized skills, such as that of a statistician.

Criteria for a Suitable Reviewer

Criteria

• Active in the relevant field and methodology, as evidenced by their publication record
• Ideally, having published more than ten articles in the past ten years
• Not too senior, as they are likely to be very busy
• Free of any potential bias, i.e.
• No co-publications with any author of the submitted manuscript in the last five years
• Not currently or recently affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors
• Not excluded by the authors (we allow authors to exclude up to three reviewers)
• Not known to have extreme views or opinions on the topic unless additional reviewers can balance this
• Reviewers should be “independent” of one another, i.e.
• Not currently working at the same lab/institution

In some instances, you may exercise flexibility:

• Where a reviewer has co-published with an author once or twice as a small proportion of a prolific publishing history
• Where a reviewer has co-published with an author once or twice in articles that have an extensive author list, such as in a multi-center trial
• Where a reviewer is junior but remains precisely on topic, especially if their supervisor agrees to review the report before submission and includes their name
• Where it would make valid peer review impossible if requests for exclusion were honored

Finding Potential Reviewers

To supplement your knowledge of researchers in the field, we recommend exploring additional avenues:

• Assess the manuscript’s reference list to identify reviewers with specialized knowledge of the topic and methodology
• Approach invited speakers at meetings/conferences
• Check suggestions made by candidates who have declined to participate in the review process within the editorial manager (EM)
• Consider authors from articles that have already been published in your journal on similar topics
• Utilize online tools

To conduct a search using keywords, we recommend the following approaches:

PubMed, Google Scholar, PubReMiner, Anne O’Tate, Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions

To search by title and abstract, we recommend the following methods:

Jane

• Author-suggested reviewers

We strongly advise against using unsolicited reviewer suggestions from authors. If necessary, you may invite the author to suggest potential reviewers if you cannot find suitable candidates through the previously described methods. Please ask the author to provide an institutional email address for each suggested reviewer, verify the reviewer’s expertise and credentials independently, and ensure that there are no competing interests between the potential reviewer and the authors. In many cases, the email address provided may not be legitimate, or the reviewer may lack the necessary qualifications. If you choose to invite author-suggested reviewers, it is always advisable to include at least one reviewer who was not suggested by the authors.

• Personal contacts

Finding new reviewers offers distinct advantages compared to relying solely on your personal contacts, especially if you still need help finding reviewers after utilizing the above suggestions. By identifying reviewers with the appropriate expertise, you can expand your journal’s audience, and new reviewers may be more inclined to consider your journal for future submissions.

Making an Editorial Decision

Editors make decisions regarding manuscripts based on reviewer reports and their own evaluations. In most cases, at least two reports are received that are broadly in agreement, allowing for a quick assessment of the reviewer’s comments and enabling a straightforward decision-making process.

For further information and guidance on making editorial decisions, we encourage you to attend our Fundamentals for Editors: editor@gleampub.com

When Should I Reject a Manuscript?

When rejecting a manuscript, whether before or after peer review, it is essential to provide authors with clear reasons for the rejection, along with constructive feedback that can help them improve their work in the future.

• If there are concerns regarding the validity of the study that cannot be addressed or if the proposed revisions would result in an entirely new study, the manuscript should be accepted with an invitation to resubmit.
• If reviewers request extensive revisions before a manuscript is accepted, completing these revisions may take longer than three months. While the manuscript can be rejected, the opportunity to resubmit is limited.
• Is another journal more appropriate?

If a manuscript is deemed out of scope for a journal, or if the results do not meet the criteria of a selective journal but are nonetheless sound, we offer a transfer service to another journal within Gleam Publishing. However, you may also choose to reject a manuscript without transfer for any reason. You always have the option to reject without transfer.

When Should I Request Revisions?

You should request a revision if the manuscript is likely to be acceptable for publication after some changes and modifications. The authors will receive the reviewers’ and editors’ comments and will be asked to revise the manuscript accordingly.

If the scale of revisions means that the authors would need a long period and the manuscript would require extensive reworking, it may be suitable to reject the manuscript while inviting the authors to resubmit. The original file will be closed, allowing the authors to submit a new manuscript. This approach encourages more extensive revisions and prevents the prolonged or indefinite retention of files should the authors be unable to complete the necessary changes.

Which Reviewer Requests Are Acceptable?

When contacting authors, it is advisable to include a brief paragraph highlighting specific areas you would like them to focus on when revising their manuscript.

Further experiments may be needed to support the claims made in the manuscript. While these additional studies would be ideal, they may not be critical for the paper itself. If the reviewers request further data, please clearly state in your summary which points are essential for the manuscript’s validity. A manuscript can still be suitable for publication even if it does not meet the “gold standard” if authors adequately discuss the limitations of their work as an alternative. It may be possible for authors to avoid over-interpreting their results and to highlight where further work is needed rather than produce additional experiments, validations, or controls.

Who Reviews Author Revisions?

• If you recommend revisions to a manuscript, you will be notified once the revised manuscript is resubmitted. At that stage, you should decide whether the manuscript can be accepted without a re-review or if you need further advice from the original reviewers.
• If you feel that a re-review is required, requesting feedback from the original reviewers on any points that require clarification can save time.

How Many Revisions Should Be Allowed?

We typically allow authors to make only two rounds of revisions to avoid a lengthy peer-review process, which can be frustrating for both authors and reviewers.

If further minor revisions need to be made or if a manuscript requires copyediting, we can offer a third revision period. If a manuscript still requires extensive reworking, we recommend rejection with an invitation to resubmit once the necessary revisions have been completed. If further revisions would not render the manuscript acceptable, it should be rejected without an invitation to resubmit.

What If Decision-Making Could Be More Straightforward?

When reviewers disagree in their assessment of work, you may be able to reach a decision without seeking further advice by considering their areas of expertise. We encourage you to carefully read the concerns raised by each reviewer and recognize that one reviewer may highlight an issue that another has overlooked due to their differing expertise in particular subject matters.

It is expected that you will be able to make a straightforward decision, even when reviewers present opposing views, by considering your knowledge of the subject area, your interpretation of the manuscript, and the reviewers’ expertise. However, if you remain uncertain about how to proceed, it may be advisable to seek additional guidance from an independent third reviewer or to request that another editorial team or the editorial board adjudicate the conflicting reports.

If the authors have already made revisions in response to the initial reviews, it is preferable to seek further advice on specific points of disagreement rather than requesting a whole new report from an independent third reviewer.

What If There Are Ethical Concerns?

If you have any concerns regarding the ethical framework of the research—such as a lack of participant consent, absence of ethical approval for the study, or issues where the value of the knowledge gained does not justify the severity of the experiments conducted—or possible research or author misconduct, please address these issues with your journal contact as soon as possible and before making your editorial decision. For further information, please consult our editorial policies.

If you need any additional information or wish to discuss any concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.

What Should You Do If There Are Language Concerns?

We aim to support authors who may struggle to publish their results due to insufficient proficiency in written English or the presentation of their findings. Therefore, we only advocate for the rejection of a manuscript based on the standard of English if it is of inferior quality or if the authors have had the opportunity to improve the manuscript but have not met the required standards. Simultaneously, editors and reviewers should not be expected to perform language copyediting themselves. Instead, we recommend that editors advise authors to improve their English language skills as part of their revisions or before submitting the manuscript for review, if necessary.

To assist authors in addressing language concerns, we recommend utilizing a reputable English language editing service, such as those provided by our Gleam Publishing Services Center. All users are entitled to a 15% discount on these services. Please note that the use of an editing service is at the author’s expense and is neither a requirement nor a guarantee of publication.