What is the Peer Review model?
Spanish Journal of Soil Science operates a single blind peer review process i.e. reviewers know the identity of authors, but authors don't know the identity of reviewers during peer review.
The Full Peer Review consists of two phases:
Independent Review
During the Independent Review phase, the reviewers assess the manuscript independently from each other and from the authors.
Interactive Review
During the Interactive Review phase, authors and reviewers can interact with each other through real-time comments in the discussion forum – with the aim of addressing all concerns about the manuscript. The handling Editor oversees the review process, and, if required, the Editor in Chief can also enter the Review Forum.
The following articles types undergo a full peer review:
Original Research, Review, Mini Review and Brief Research Report
Short Peer Review Guidelines
Short peer reviews differ from full peer reviews in two aspects: they are directly forwarded to the Interactive Review Phase and they may be reviewed by the handling Editor alone. It is up to the Editor’s consideration if reviewers are invited to the review process.
Interactive Review, manuscript acceptance and rejection follow the same rules as for full peer reviews.
The following articles types are attributed a shortened peer review:
Editorial, Opinion,Letter to the Editor and Commentary.
At the discretion of the Editors, the submitted manuscript may be rejected immediately after submission, or after peer review. Manuscripts not complying with international ethical standards will not be considered for publication and will be returned to the authors without scientific peer review.
The review process for manuscripts authored by the Executive Editors and Editorial Board members is made automatically inaccessible to these authors in order to safeguard the anonymity and independence of the review process.
Each submission is considered very carefully and decisions to reject a manuscript are not taken lightly. Authors wishing to appeal an Editorial decision may do so by listing specific and objective reasons in an email to the Editorial Office (sjss@frontierspartnerships.org) who will coordinate the appeal process. The editorial team will consider the appeal, reply to the authors and take any appropriate action.
Guide to Peer Review
Before Accepting the Invitation
When you receive an invitation to review, it is important to consider the following points before accepting:
A) Is the manuscript within my expertise?
Think about whether the manuscript is suitably within your area of expertise. If not, please decline the invite, and consider helping us by suggesting alternative relevant experts.
B) Do I have the time?
We strive to keep our peer review process efficient and as such reviewers are requested to complete their reports within 10 days after they accept the invitation. You should let the Editorial Office know if you aren’t able to provide a review but may be able to participate at another time.
C) Respond to the invite
We ask reviewers to respond to the review invitation as soon as they can. You are of course free to decline to review if you feel that you lack the time or expertise, and we always appreciate recommendations for alternative reviewers.
If a reviewer realises that they have insufficient time to complete their review, or if there will be a delay to the deadline after the invitation has been accepted, please contact the Editorial Office. We will be happy to assist.
During Peer Review
Before a manuscript is sent for peer review, the Editorial Office team and the Handling Editor will already have carried out initial quality checks.
The aims of our reviewers should always be to:
focus on the quality of the science objectively
collaborate towards improvement and think constructively
help the author and editor understand what is needed with clear comments
Below are our tips for ensuring a quality report is produced.
What to do:
1) Respect the scope
Authors provide a ‘contribution to the field’ statement with their manuscript to explain the article’s intended scope and relevance. Keep the focus on what the manuscript is aiming to do, even if your expertise extends in a related direction. You should avoid recommending authors vastly expand the scope of the manuscript (e.g. “you only dealt with x, you need to deal with y”), or take them outside their manuscript’s intended scope.
2) Focus on science
Be objective. Also, it is not necessary to flag small copy-editing errors: the Production team will ensure those are fixed during typesetting.
3) Provide constructive feedback
Comments should seek to recommend reasonable improvements, in a polite and impersonal tone. Show professional courtesy by thinking about what you would want to receive on a manuscript of your own. And if it is good, say so, and also say why!
4) Consider field specifics
Are there elements of the research specific to the field you work in? If so, apply your expertise to give feedback on these. It will be helpful to all involved in the manuscript’s review process.
5) Please respect the manuscript’s confidentiality
Please keep the contents of a manuscript under review strictly confidential, except for your comments to the handling editor and author(s). Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript, including junior researchers or mentees without permission from the journal.
What NOT to do:
1) Don’t be vague or too brief
Authors find precise and detailed feedback extremely helpful, and this tends to result in a timely and smoother review process. Whereas a brief report will often lead to additional questions from authors. Make sure recommendations and decisions are explained clearly.
2) Don’t leave out key points in your initial report
The initial report should be thorough and provide all the necessary feedback upfront. While it is possible that further revisions to the paper will bring up new questions, be sure to include your key points in your initial report. Ensure you conclude your report with a clear recommendation for the editor. You are the expert and your guidance is highly valued.
3) Don’t drop out of the peer review
To ensure an efficient process for all involved, please try to submit your responses on time. If you need to request an extension or to withdraw from the review process you can do this directly in the review forum at any time, or contact the Editorial Office for support. Try to place yourself in the authors’ shoes, as they anxiously await feedback on their submission.
Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers:
Frontiers is a member of COPE, and as the publisher of Spanish Journal of Soil Science, we request that peer reviewers adhere in full to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Keep in touch!
Encountering any issues during review or have any concerns with the manuscript? Need assistance using our review platform? Need to request an extension to submit your review? For these or any other inquiries or updates, do not hesitate to contact the Editorial Office.