Reviewer resource centre

Peer review is what makes a journal worth reading. This page explains how to become a reviewer for a Palmyra journal, what we ask of you and how the reviewer workspace works. The rules are the same in every journal.

Becoming a reviewer

Reviewers are researchers with published work in the journal's field. To offer to review:

Open the registration page of the journal you would like to review for (links below).
Complete the form, including your ORCID iD if you have one.
Tick Yes, I would like to be contacted with requests to review submissions to this journal.
In Identify reviewing interests, list your subjects and methods as keywords. Editors search these keywords when choosing reviewers, so be specific (for example "seismic retrofitting of masonry", not "engineering").

Journals still in development are not yet taking reviewers. See the journals in development, and write to editor@palmyrapub.org if you would like to be contacted when one of them opens.

The invitation

An invitation arrives by email with the manuscript's title and abstract. Please answer within one week, whether you accept or decline. Decline if the paper is outside your expertise, if you cannot finish within the deadline, or if you have a competing interest. A declining reviewer who suggests a colleague saves the editor days.

The review itself is due three weeks after you accept. Automatic reminders are sent three days before each deadline and three days after it. If you need more time, ask the editor through the workspace before the deadline, not after it.

Double-anonymised review

Research submissions receive double-anonymised review: you do not know who the authors are, and they will not be told who you are. Please do not try to identify the authors. If you recognise the work, tell the editor. Before attaching a file to your review, remove your name from its properties (in Word: File → Info → Check for Issues → Inspect Document).

Confidentiality and AI tools

A manuscript under review is confidential. Do not share it, discuss it or use its unpublished findings in your own work. If you want a colleague or student to help with a review, ask the editor first and name them in your comments to the editor.

Do not enter any part of the manuscript or of your review into a public generative-AI service; doing so discloses unpublished work to a third party. This follows the press's policy on generative AI.

Competing interests

Decline, or ask the editor, if you have collaborated with the authors in the past three years, share their institution, compete directly with the work, or have a financial or personal interest in the outcome. Every review form asks you to declare any competing interest; the editor reads the declaration alongside the report.

Writing the report

The most useful reports have four parts:

Summary. In a few sentences, what the paper claims and how. It shows the editor and authors that you have read it as intended.
Major issues. Problems that affect the conclusions: the design, sample, analysis, missing controls, overreaching claims, and whether the data support what is said. For health research, check the paper against the reporting guideline it should follow (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE, STARD or ARRIVE).
Minor issues. Clarity, presentation, figures, references. Numbered, so the authors can answer each one.
Comments to the editor. Anything the authors should not see, such as a suspected ethical problem. Keep your recommendation here, not in the comments to the authors.

Be specific and civil: criticise the work, never the authors. Do not ask the authors to cite your own work unless it is genuinely needed; unnecessary requests for citations are treated as a breach of reviewing ethics. Language quality is the editorial office's concern; judge the science, and note unclear passages without rewriting them.

Your recommendation

Reviewer recommendations
Recommendation	Use it when
Accept Submission	The paper can be published as it stands, or with trivial edits.
Revisions Required	Minor revisions that the editor can check without a second review.
Resubmit for Review	Major revisions: the paper could be publishable, but the changes need another round of review.
Resubmit Elsewhere	Sound work that falls outside this journal's scope.
Decline Submission	Flaws that revision cannot fix.
See Comments	None of the above fits; explain in your comments to the editor.

The editor decides. Reviewers advise, and editors may reach a decision that differs from one reviewer's recommendation when the reports disagree. Editors rate the quality of each review, and that record guides future invitations.

Ethical concerns

If you suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data or images, undeclared competing interests, or research without ethical approval, tell the editor in your confidential comments. Do not contact the authors or investigate yourself. The editor follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the press's misconduct procedure.

Using the reviewer workspace

Everything happens in your account, with no email attachments. Log in at the journal and open Submissions; each review assignment has four steps:

Request. Read the title, abstract and deadlines, then choose Accept Review, Continue to Step #2 or Decline Review Request. Files open only after you accept.
Guidelines. Read the journal's reviewer guidelines and competing-interest statement.
Download & Review. Download the manuscript, write your comments for the authors and, separately, for the editor, attach an annotated file if you wish, and choose your recommendation.
Completion. Submit. You will receive a thank-you email, and later the editor's decision if you ask for it.

Recognition

Letter of confirmation. On request, the editorial office confirms in writing the reviews you have completed, for promotion or appraisal files. Manuscript titles are not disclosed.
Annual acknowledgement. Each journal thanks its reviewers by name once a year, with their permission.

Contact

Questions about reviewing: editor@palmyrapub.org.