Reviewers instructions

1. Before you begin

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

1) Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.

2) Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.

3) Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.

4) Do you need to find out more about reviewing and the peer review process? If so, please consult the editorial office.

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can (even if it is to decline) – a delay in your decision slows down the review process and means more waiting for the author. If you do decline the invitation, it would be helpful if you could provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

2. Managing your review

Confidential material

If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.

How to log in and access your review

Your review will be managed via an online submission system. To access the manuscript and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received. This will bring you to the submission/reviewing system. If you experience difficulties accessing a manuscript, you should contact the editorial office.

Journal-specific instructions

When you sit down to write a review, make sure you familiarize yourself with journal guidelines (these will be noted in the journal’s instructions for authors available on journal’s homepage).

First read the article. You should spot check major issues by choosing which section to read first. Below we offer some tips about handling specific parts of the paper.


If the manuscript you are reviewing is reporting an experiment, check the methods section first. The following cases are considered major flaws and should be flagged:

    1) Unsound methodology

    2) Discredited method

    3) Missing processes known to be influential on the area of reported research

    4) A conclusion drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript

For analytical papers examine the sampling report, which is mandated in time-dependent studies. For qualitative research make sure that a systematic data analysis is presented and sufficient descriptive elements with relevant quotes from interviews are listed in addition to the author’s narrative.

Research data and visualizations

Once you are satisfied that the methodology is sufficiently robust, examine any data in the form of figures, tables, or images. Authors may add research data, including data visualizations, to their submission to enable readers to interact and engage more closely with their research after publication. Please be aware that links to data might therefore be present in the submission files. These items should also receive your attention during the peer review process.

Critical issues in research data, which are considered to be major flaws can be related to insufficient data points, statistically non-significant variations and unclear data tables.

Ethical considerations

Experiments including patient or animal data should properly be documented. Most journals require ethical approval by the author’s host organization.

For more information about Editorial policies.


If you don’t spot any major flaws, take a break from the manuscript, giving you time to think. Consider the article from your own perspective. When you sit down to write the review, again make sure you familiarize yourself with journal guidelines (these will be noted in the journal’s guide for authors).

3. Structuring your review

Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. It will also aid the author and allow them to improve their manuscript. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any ad hominem remarks or personal details including your name.

Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data and evidence. 

If you need to use a large number of mathematical symbols or formulas in the comments, you can upload the attachment (Word or PDF) to submit your comments.

Your recommendation

When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor will likely use for classifying the article:

    1) Reject (explain your reasoning in your report)

    2) Accept without revision

    3) Revise – either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether you would be happy to review the revised article). If you are recommending a revision, you must furnish the author with a clear, sound explanation of why this is necessary.

Manuscripts with the following characteristics may be accepted: (1) Important and novel topic; (2) Interesting results; (3) Innovative original manuscripts or forward-looking and instructive review; (4) Major scientific advances; (5) In-depth analysis and scientific connotation.

Reason for rejection: (1) Not suitable for "CEOG"; (2) Methods and results are not credible, or have basic errors; (3) Not sufficient explain the results; (4) Minor research progress; (5) Low academic value; (6) Poor writing; (7) Other reasons.

Bear in mind that there will be the opportunity to direct separate comments to both the editor and author. Once you are ready to submit your report, consult the editorial office if you encounter any difficulties.

4. The final decision

The editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. The editor will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision. The submission system provides reviewers with a notification of the final decision, if the journal has opted in to this function.

5. After your review

Once you have delivered your review, your reviewing activities will be automatically captured. Your profile will display your reviewing history and thus demonstrate your input to the peer review process as well as detailing your own articles, positions and editorial work.

Do not forget that, even after finalizing your review, you must treat the article and any linked files or data as confidential documents. This means you must not share them or information about the review with anyone without prior authorization from the editor.

6. Review process

☆ Preliminary review: before peer review, the editorial office may preliminary review all manuscripts and reject manuscripts that are not novel or not suitable for “CEOG”.

☆ Peer review: a manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers. The results of the peer review will directly influence the editor's decision.

☆ Re-review: you will need to review the revised manuscript and make a recommendation.

☆ Author appeal: the editorial office will send the author's complaint manuscript to you. You should reply and make a recommendation. If you are a reviewer that the authors ask to evade, the editor will consider other reviewers.

Your information is kept confidential throughout the review process.

Finally, we take the opportunity to thank you sincerely on behalf of the journal, editors and author(s) for the time you have taken to give your valuable input to the article.

Current Issue

  • Volume 48, Issue 5