Peer Review

Introduction

All research articles, and most other article types, published in NASR journals undergo peer review. This typically involves review by at least two independent expert peer reviewers. Individual journals may differ in their peer review processes (e.g., open or anonymized); authors should refer to the specific journal for details.

Peer Review Policy

All submissions to NASR journals are first checked for completeness before being assessed by an Editor, who determines whether they are suitable for peer review. If an Editor is listed as an author or has any other competing interest regarding a manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to oversee the peer review process. Editors consider peer review reports when making decisions but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the Editor alone may result in rejection. Authors receive peer review reports together with the editorial decision.

Proceedings papers are reviewed by Programme Chairs and Programme Committee members of the respective conference, with assistance from external reviewers selected by them.

AI Use by Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a vital role in scientific publishing. Their expert evaluations guide editorial decisions and ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. Reviewers are selected primarily for their in-depth subject matter or methodological expertise—knowledge that is invaluable and irreplaceable. Reviewers are accountable for the accuracy and views expressed in their reports, and the peer review process operates on mutual trust among authors, reviewers, and editors. Despite rapid advances, generative AI tools have significant limitations: they may lack up‑to‑date knowledge and can produce nonsensical, biased, or false information. Manuscripts may also contain sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons, NASR asks that—while we explore providing reviewers with access to safe AI tools—peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools.

If any part of the evaluation of the manuscript was supported by an AI tool, reviewers are asked to transparently declare the use of such tools in their peer review report.

Peer Reviewer Selection

Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process and is based on multiple factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, conflict of interest, and prior performance. Speed, thoroughness, sound reasoning, and collegiality are highly valued.

Editor Responsibilities (adapted from the NASR Code of Conduct for Editors)

  • Editors are expected to obtain at least two peer reviewers for manuscripts reporting primary research or secondary analysis of primary research. In exceptional circumstances (e.g., niche or emerging fields) where two independent reviewers cannot be secured, Editors may make a decision based on a single peer review report, provided that report meets the standards described below.

  • Peer review reports should be in English and provide constructive critical evaluations, particularly regarding the appropriateness of methods, accuracy of results, and whether conclusions are supported by the data. Editorial decisions should be based on reports meeting these criteria, not on short, superficial reports lacking rationale.

  • Editors must independently verify the contact details of reviewers suggested by authors or other third parties. Institutional email addresses should be used wherever possible. Each manuscript should be reviewed by at least one reviewer not suggested by the author.

  • Manuscripts that do not report primary research (e.g., Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries, Opinion articles) may be accepted without peer review. Such manuscripts should be assessed by the Editor(s) if within their expertise; if not, they should be assessed by at least one independent expert reviewer or Editorial Board Member.

  • In rare cases when two independent reviewers cannot be secured, an Editor may act as a second reviewer or decide using only one report. In such cases: the Editor must have sufficient knowledge in the area; the Editor should sign the review for transparency; the single report must be detailed and thorough; the first reviewer should be senior, on topic, and have published recently on the subject.

Potential peer reviewers must inform the Editor of any possible conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation. Communications between Editors and reviewers contain confidential information that should not be shared with third parties.

Some journals allow authors to suggest potential reviewers and to request exclusion of certain individuals (usually a maximum of two people/research groups). Editors will consider these requests but are not obliged to fulfill them. The Editor’s decision on reviewer selection is final. Authors should not recommend recent collaborators or colleagues from the same institution. Suggested reviewers should be accompanied by information to verify identity and expertise, such as an institutional email address and ORCID or Scopus ID.

Peer Reviewer Diversity

NASR is committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Editors are strongly encouraged to consider geographical regions, gender identities, racial/ethnic groups, and other dimensions of diversity when inviting peer reviewers.

Peer Reviewer Misconduct

Providing false or misleading information—for example, identity theft or suggesting fake reviewers—will result in rejection of the manuscript, further investigation in accordance with NASR’s misconduct policy, and notification to the authors’ institutions or employers. NASR journals are members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Peer Review Models

  • Open peer review: Reviewer names are included on the reports. If the manuscript is published, reports with reviewer names are published online alongside the article. Authors know reviewer identities during the review process and vice versa, but direct correspondence between authors and reviewers is not permitted (communication is mediated by the Editor).

  • Transparent peer review: If the manuscript is published, the peer review reports appear online alongside the article, but reviewer names are not published.

  • Anonymized peer review: Most NASR journals use a single‑anonymized process (author identities known to reviewers, but reviewer identities not revealed to authors). In double‑anonymized peer review, neither authors’ nor reviewers’ identities are disclosed. The pre‑publication history of articles is not made available online.

Peer Reviewer Guidance

The primary purpose of peer review is to provide the Editor with information needed to reach a fair, evidence‑based decision that adheres to the journal’s editorial criteria. Reports should also help authors revise their paper for potential acceptance. Reports accompanying a recommendation to reject should explain the major weaknesses of the research.

Reviewers should adhere to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Confidential comments to the Editor are welcome but must not contradict the main points in the report for the authors. Reviewers should assess papers exclusively against the journal’s criteria for publication.

The following conventions must be respected:

  • Review the journal’s peer review policy before accepting a review role.

  • Conduct reviews objectively; personal criticism, defamatory, or libelous remarks are inappropriate.

  • Express views clearly with supporting arguments and references.

  • Declare any potential competing interests; decline to review manuscripts where a competing interest exists.

  • Respect the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts; do not discuss them with colleagues or use the information in one’s own work.

  • If a reviewer wishes to pass an invitation to a colleague, they must first contact the journal.

  • Raise any concerns with the editorial team.

Key Questions for Reviewers

Reviewers are asked to assess the following aspects:

  • Key results: Summarize the outstanding features of the work.

  • Validity: Are there flaws that should prohibit publication?

  • Originality and significance: Are the conclusions original? Provide relevant references if not.

  • Data & methodology: Comment on the validity of the approach, quality of data, and presentation. Is the reporting sufficiently detailed to enable reproduction of results?

  • Statistics and uncertainties: Are error bars defined, statistical tests appropriate, and probability values accurately described?

  • Conclusions: Are the conclusions and data interpretation robust, valid, and reliable?

  • Inflammatory material: Does the manuscript contain inappropriate or potentially libelous language?

  • Suggested improvements: List changes that could strengthen the work.

  • References: Is prior literature cited appropriately? (Attempts at coerced citation will be noted.)

  • Clarity and context: Is the abstract clear and accessible? Are the introduction and conclusions appropriate?

  • Scope of expertise: Indicate any part of the manuscript or analyses you were unable to assess fully.

  • SAGER guidelines: Check whether sex and gender considerations have been addressed appropriately.

  • Misconduct allegations: Alert the Editor or NASR if you suspect plagiarism, image manipulation, or other research misconduct.

Before submitting a report, reviewers should consider the tone: Is it courteous and professional? Does it avoid unnecessary personal remarks or antagonistic comments? The Editor reserves the right to remove inappropriate language from a report.

Reports do not need to follow a specific order but should document the reviewer’s thought process. Some journals have specific questions to address. All statements should be justified with facts and references. Not every aspect may apply to every paper due to discipline‑specific standards; when in doubt, reviewers may contact the Editor for guidance.

NASR remains neutral regarding jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Reviewers should not request changes to such unless critical to the academic clarity of the manuscript.

NASR journals are committed to rapid editorial decisions. Reviewers are asked to respond promptly within the agreed timeframe. If a delay is anticipated, reviewers should inform the journal so that authors can be kept updated and alternatives can be found if necessary.

Peer Reviewer Recognition

NASR is committed to recognizing the invaluable service of peer reviewers. As part of our appreciation program, reviewers may credit their ORCID profile with verified peer review data transmitted directly from the submission system at the time of report submission.