Guidance for reviewers

Prosperitas employs a double-blind peer review, ensuring that all author information is excluded from manuscripts and that reviewers are experts in their field with no conflicts of interest regarding submitted manuscripts (this includes any competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript).

The reviews provide the Editor with the information needed to reach a fair, evidence-based decision on where to suggest a minor / major revision, accept or reject the paper. In cases where peer reviews are conflicting, a third reviewer will be invited, to ensure a fair objective decision is reached.

Review reports not only serve in reaching a decision on the manuscript but provide guidance to authors on how to improve their papers so that the studies may be accepted for publication in Prosperitas. As such, the reports need to explain clearly and in detail how the reviewer reached the recommendation for the author to undertake a minor / major revision, or if the manuscript should be accepted or rejected. In the reviewer platform, reviewers can submit these comments to the author, as well as offer additional confidential comments solely for the Editor.

We appreciate the work and support of our reviewers and offer them an opportunity for their reviews to receive recognition on Web of Science for their review work, if they so desire.

We would ask reviewers to adhere to the following guidelines:

  • All reviewers are asked in their initial review if they are willing to review a revision as well. Wherever possible, we would ask reviewers to review a revision, as the author is responding directly to their comments and, as such, they would be best suited to assess if the necessary improvement have been made.
  • Reviews should be conducted objectively and fairly. Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles of COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers (see https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers )
  • Reviewers should offer constructive criticism, explaining their reasoning, giving examples, supporting arguments and references, whilst avoiding personal, inappropriate, or defamatory remarks. The Editor reserves the right to remove any inappropriate language from a review report.
  • All information provided to reviewers should be treated as confidential.
  • All peer reviews should be conducted by the person invited and should not be undertaken by others.
  • If reviewers have any questions or concerns, they are most welcome to contact a member of the editorial team.
  • If there is any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analysis that a reviewer feels is outside the scope of their expertise, then they may also contact a member of the editorial team.

When reviewing, we would ask that the reviewers use the following questions to guide them in writing the review, although of course the content of the review report depends very much on the type of paper and its methodology:

  1. What are the novel or interesting features of the manuscript? What makes it stand out? What are the key findings or implications?
  2. What are the flaws that may prevent publication? List them and give clear reasoning and suggested improvements.
  3. Does the introduction give clear indications of the aims of the research, the importance of the topic and the research gap? Give details of lacking areas.
  4. Does the literature review sufficiently cover the key themes relating to the topic, using both key authors on the topic and a wide range of international papers. Does the literature review examine in-depth extant literature? Give details of lacking areas.
  5. Does the methodology sufficiently cover the chosen approach and reasoning for it? For example, is there clear sampling criteria, research protocol, questionnaire design, chosen approach for data analysis and so on. Are there considerations in the methodology for reducing bias (e.g. confounding variables, common method)? Are the methods suitable for the type of research?
  6. For the results, we expect our reviewers to review all data, including any extended data and supplementary information. Consider the quality of the data, as well as its presentation. Is the reporting of data sufficiently detailed and transparent to enable reproducing the results?
  7. Throughout the paper, does the text flow? Is there any inappropriate language? Does the paper meet APA style requirements?

After completing the review, we suggest giving a day or so to consider further and then come back to it and read it through one more time, imagining that you are the author receiving this review. Consider the tone, helpfulness of suggestions and how you would feel about receiving this review.

In cases where a review has not been received, reminders are sent and we would ask any reviewer who has accepted an invitation and then found they are no longer able to review, for whatever reason, to inform the editorial team, so that another reviewer can be invited. Prosperitas is committed to ensuring a prompt review process and would like to avoid any delays, wherever possible.

When a minor or major revision is required, we ask the reviewers to consider primarily if their original comments have been addressed appropriately in the revision. Whilst authors may not necessarily agree with suggested improvements, authors are required to highlight the changes in the text as well as upload a separate document detailing the response to comments, included those not taken on board.