Invitation to Review
The email invitation to review includes links to accept or decline. Before you accept, please ensure that the manuscript content is close enough to your area of expertise to allow you to provide useful input and a prompt review. If that is not the case, please decline; your suggestions for alternate reviewers are welcomed.
Reviewing the Manuscript and Writing the Report
Peer review reports should be in English and provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors’ work, particularly in relation to the appropriateness of methods used, whether the results are accurate, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Editorial decisions should be based on peer reviewer comments that meet these criteria rather than on recommendations made by short, superficial peer reviewer reports which do not provide a rationale for the recommendations.
We suggest dividing your review into three parts: (I) Recommendation; (II) Comments to the editors only; (III) Comments intended for both the author(s) and the editors.
Your report should include a recommendation to accept, revise and reconsider, or reject the manuscript. Please provide reasons for your recommendation.
Comments intended for both the author(s) and the editors:
We ask reviewers the following types of questions, to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:
Reports do not necessarily need to follow this specific order but should document the peer reviewer’s thought process. All statements should be justified and argued in detail, naming facts and citing supporting references, commenting on all aspects that are relevant to the manuscript and that the reviewers feel qualified commenting on. Not all of the above aspects will necessarily apply to every paper, due to discipline-specific standards. When in doubt about discipline-specific peer-reviewing standards, reviewers can contact the Editor for guidance.
Comments intended for the editors only:
This section is where you may include confidential remarks for the editor. These comments may include your thoughts on why the paper is right or wrong for NST, reasons behind your recommendation, or other information you feel would be useful.