As a valued reviewer of Lectio Socialis, you play a vital role in maintaining the journal’s commitment to academic excellence, ethical integrity, and interdisciplinary scholarship. We are grateful for your time, expertise, and insight. The following guidelines are designed to support your engagement with the review process and to ensure a constructive and transparent peer review system that benefits authors, reviewers, and editors alike.

1. Commitment, Timeliness and Language of Review

Before accepting a review invitation, please ensure that you can complete the evaluation within the requested timeframe. Timely reviews are essential for the smooth functioning of the editorial workflow and for respecting the time and effort authors invest in their submissions. Additionally, Lectio Socialis conducts the peer review process exclusively in English; therefore, reviewers are expected to prepare all reports, annotations, and communications with the editorial office in clear and academically appropriate English. We appreciate your punctuality and dedication, and to formally recognize your contribution, Lectio Socialis issues digitally signed certificates of appreciation to all reviewers who complete a review.

2. Dynamic Communication

We maintain an internal messaging system that enables direct and confidential communication between reviewers and editors. You are encouraged to use this platform at any point in the review process to request clarification, raise concerns, or provide feedback. Likewise, editors may contact you if additional input is needed. This ongoing dialogue supports a more responsive and transparent peer review environment.

3. Ethical Responsibility

Please disclose any potential conflicts of interest—whether personal, academic, or institutional—before proceeding with a review. Ethical peer review requires impartiality, confidentiality, and respect for authorship. Reviewers should not suggest citations to their own work unless clearly relevant to the manuscript. We adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and expect all reviewers to uphold these standards.

4. Evaluation Structure: Balanced and Supportive Feedback

Our review form includes both scaled assessment questions and open comment sections to allow for structured and qualitative feedback. In addition to the form, reviewers are invited to annotate the manuscript directly or upload a separate document containing their in-depth comments, suggestions for improvement, or proposed edits.

Important: To preserve the integrity of the double-blind peer review process, please ensure that any uploaded files do not contain identifying information such as names, email addresses, or institutional affiliations. If using tracked changes or in-text comments, use a neutral pseudonym (e.g., "Reviewer A"). This ensures the anonymity of reviewers while allowing authors to benefit from detailed input.

5. Peer Review as Learning and Service

We regard peer review as both an intellectual contribution and a valuable learning experience. Reviewers are encouraged to select manuscripts that align with their expertise or offer opportunities for interdisciplinary insight. To support continuous improvement, we provide access to several peer review training resources, including:

• COPE Ethical Guidelines
• Elsevier Reviewer Hub
• Wiley Reviewer Resources

6. Respectful and Clear Language

Reviews should be written in a constructive, respectful, and academically sound tone. Begin with a brief overall assessment of the manuscript, followed by a detailed evaluation of major strengths and weaknesses. Conclude with specific, actionable suggestions for improvement and a clear recommendation (e.g., accept, revise, reject) with supporting rationale. Your feedback should aim to guide the author in enhancing the manuscript, regardless of the publication outcome.

7. Confidentiality and Integrity

All information obtained during the review process is strictly confidential and must not be shared or disclosed without prior permission from the editorial office. If you wish to consult a colleague for co-reviewing or second opinions, please contact the editors first. Upholding the confidentiality of submissions and the integrity of the process is fundamental to ethical reviewing.

8. Recognition and Feedback

We believe in acknowledging the often-invisible labor of peer review. In addition to reviewer certificates, we welcome feedback on your experience and are exploring future integrations with recognition platforms such as Publons and ORCID. Your insights as a reviewer also help us improve the editorial process and ensure the high standards of Lectio Socialis.

9. Reviewer Eligibility and Conflict of Interest Declaration

To safeguard the impartiality and ethical standards of the peer review process, reviewers must assess their eligibility before accepting an invitation. A review should only be undertaken when full independence from the authors, editors, and the research presented can be guaranteed.

a. Personal Relationships and Financial Interests (Disqualifying Conflicts)

A financial or business relationship with an author or their institution, including shared grants or any financial interest that could be influenced by the manuscript’s findings.

The presence of any of these conditions renders a reviewer ineligible to participate in the evaluation.

b. Professional Relationships (Declarable Conflicts)

A published collaboration or completed research project with an author within the last two years.

A supervisory or student relationship with an author within the past three years.

Employment at the same institution or within the same parent organization as any author.

Membership in the same research consortium, committee, advisory board, or working group without direct collaboration.

Past involvement in a grant or project that is no longer active.

When such situations arise, reviewers should not accept the invitation directly but should instead contact the editorial office for guidance. The editors may request a transparency statement as part of the editorial record.

c. Expertise Requirements

Reviewers are expected to have advanced knowledge of the subject matter—typically demonstrated through a doctoral degree or equivalent expertise and scholarly experience. Early-career researchers interested in participating may contact the editorial office to explore suitable co-review or training arrangements.

d. Acknowledgment of Reviewer Contribution

By accepting a review invitation, you agree that—if the manuscript is accepted—your name and institutional affiliation may be acknowledged in the final publication as part of our commitment to transparency and recognition of scholarly service. This does not compromise the anonymity of the double-blind process during review.

Reviewers must decline the invitation if any of the following apply:

A close personal, familial, or friendship relationship with any author or the handling editor.

An ongoing collaboration with any author, including manuscripts under preparation or review, or an active joint research project.

Some professional connections do not necessarily prohibit a reviewer from serving but require transparent disclosure to the editorial office:

References

Bourne, P. E. (2005). Ten simple rules for getting published. PLoS Comput Biol, 1(5): e57. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057
Bourne, P. E., & Chalupa, L. M. (2006). Ten simple rules for getting grants. PLoS Comput Biol, 2(2): e12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020012
Bravo, G. et al. (2019). The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nature Communications, 10(1).
Fong, E. A. & Wilhite, A. W. (2017). Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research. PLoS ONE, 12(12).
Kowalczuk, M. K. et al. (2015). Retrospective analysis of the quality of reviewer reports at BMC Medicine. BMC Medicine, 13(1).
Nicholas, D. et al. (2015). Peer review: still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing, 28(1).
Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6.
Tennant, J. P. et al. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 6, 1151.
Wager, E. & Kleinert, S. (2011). Responsible research publication: International standards for editors and authors. 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity.
Warne, V. (2016). Rewarding reviewers – sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learned Publishing, 29(1).