For Reviewers

As the review process is the cornerstone of academic publishing, reviewers are especially valued for their contribution to successful publishing. However, reviewers who wish to contribute in the review process need to satisfy some important criteria. Reviewers must:
  • possess the relevant and adequate expertise to review the manuscript.
  • inform the volume editor if they face a potential conflict of interest.
  • be able to meet the stipulated deadlines. They will need to ensure that they have the time and are willing to devote the effort necessary to complete all stages of the review process.
  • be well acquainted with and compliant to the publication’s code of ethics for reviewers.

If all the above criteria can be satisfied, reviewers need to reply to the invitation in a timely manner to avoid any delay in the process.

It will be much appreciated if those who decline the invitation can recommend reviewers who can satisfy the above criteria.  

Ethical Policy for Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to understand and accept their role as pivotal in the publication process.


Contribution to editorial decisions

Reviewers must ensure that they have sufficient expertise to provide a satisfactory review of the offered manuscripts. Reviewers who feel that they are unqualified to review the assigned manuscript should notify the volume editor and decline to review the manuscript.

Competing Interests

Reviewers should consult the volume editor before agreeing to review a manuscript in cases of potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships, as well as personal connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscripts.


In cases where reviewers feel that their objectivity may be compromised due to potential competitive, collaborative, personal or financial conflicts of interest connected to authors, institutions or manuscripts, they should inform the volume editor before accepting any review assignments.


Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the review process as any manuscript received for review is considered private and confidential. Reviewers should not discuss or share the review or information about the manuscript with any colleague or author/s during the review process before publication.


Reviewers should ensure that the timelines stipulated for the completion of the review are strictly adhered to, except in unforeseen circumstances when an extension may be required. In such circumstances, reviewers are strongly advised to contact the volume editor without delay to seek an extension or withdraw from the process so that the review process is not disrupted or delayed.

Suspected misconduct

Reviewers should be observant of any signs of fraudulent content and report any suspicions to the volume editor for further action. Such fraudulent content or misconduct may include plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication / falsification, image manipulation, author conflict of interest etc. All signs and suspicions of fraudulent content must be accompanied with evidence from the manuscript and other related evidence where applicable.

Reviewers’ Qualifications

All reviewers must possess a doctorate and/or extensive experience in their field as well as publication experience. Potential reviewers cannot be co-authors or collaborators from the same institution/s as the author/s. Author/s cited as references in the submitted manuscript may be recommended as reviewers. The manuscript author/s may also recommend reviewers whom they are acquainted with who have the necessary expertise to review the manuscript.


Discover the Reviewing Procedure

The reviewers' reports provide recommendations that contain valuable feedback for the appropriate editor, assisting the editor’s final action on the submitted manuscripts. The reviewer should evaluate the manuscript carefully to assess its suitability for the series to which it has been submitted, following the guidelines depicted in the series specific guidelines.

If the reviewer’s opinion is that the manuscript would not be suitable for the series to which it has been submitted, he/she should reflect on its suitability for publication in an alternative series and clearly state any suggestions in the report.

If the reviewer feels unable to assess the manuscript adequately, the editor would welcome suggestions of alternative reviewers who may be able to assess the manuscript. In such cases, the reviewer should provide details of the alternative reviewers and the editor will then send them an invitation to review the manuscript. It is important that the reviewer declines an invitation to review if there is any current or foreseeable conflict of interest. Furthermore, if the reviewer has any ethical concerns regarding the work or the authorship, he/she should inform the editor about these concerns.

It is within the editor’s jurisdiction to take the appropriate administrative and executive actions regarding the manuscripts. The editor has the ultimate authority to accept or reject papers. Once a manuscript has been revised by the authors, based on the reviewers’ reports, it is the editor's duty to see that, as far as possible, the authors and reviewers agree on the final version of the manuscript. The reviewers may need to be consulted again concerning an author's reply to reviewers’ comments, but further review is only undertaken when deemed essential.


Find Out How to Write a Review

Information on the scope and standards of each series can be found in the series specific guidelines.

Please try to submit your review promptly: the suggested deadline for the receipt of the review is specified in the invitation email. If you are not be able to submit your review by the specified deadline, please inform the editor as soon as possible to ask for an extension or to withdraw from the review process.

In completing their report, reviewers need to consider the following:

  • suitability of the article for the series’ scope
  • impact and originality of the work
  • contribution of the work to the field
  • the length of the article – does it reflect the level of scientific content and fit within any relevant page limits?
  • appropriacy of the manuscript for the series,
  • the coverage of the title – does the title reflect the content and contain relevant search terms for discoverability?
  • the coverage of the abstract – is it comprehensive and self-contained without reference to the main text?
  • the revisions related to major concerns preventing publication are adequately specified, while those related to minor concerns are easily resolved by the author/s

If applicable, please review all supplementary information provided.

Please answer the specific questions on the reviewer report form; they will help to create a comprehensive and a constructive report that will provide the essential information for the editors to make their decision.

Reviewers do not need to provide detailed comments on language, grammar or spelling errors except where these may result in loss of clarity in sections of the manuscript. 

Please inform the editor if:

  • the manuscript contains work that has close resemblance to other publications, or have duplicates of text and/or figures from other publications.
  • you have concerns about the level of scientific effort in the reported work.
  • the manuscript lacks sufficient or marginal originality and novelty (list any relevant publications related to the submitted manuscript in your report).
  • you suspect fragmentation of a substantial body of work into multiple short publications.
  • you consider that a manuscript contains personal criticism of others.
  • you have ethical concerns such as plagiarism or regarding approval for human or animal experimentation.
  • you wish to see any supporting data not submitted for publication, or any previous unpublished paper by the author.

Reviewer Recommendations

Along with your comments in the review report and answers to the editor’s questions, the report should contain a recommendation to the editor. Your options may include:

  • Accept
The manuscript would be suitable for publication in its current form.
  • Minor revisions
The manuscript could be suitable for publication after the author/s have responded to the reviewer comments and made changes where appropriate. These changes could include referencing another work or a rewrite of a few sections.
  • Major revision
The manuscript could be suitable for publication after the author/s have responded to the reviewer comments and made changes where necessary. These changes could include redoing experiments or a substantial rewrite of several sections.
  • Reject
The manuscript is not suitable, and it should not be considered further.


Before writing comments please consider:

Scope, quality and technical criteria

Reviewers should ensure
manuscripts meet the scope of the series and adhere to minimum quality criteria as follows:

  • Is the manuscript free from errors, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, vagueness, misconceptions etc.?
  • Is the manuscript original, novel and of interest to the readership? Does it contain significant material that makes a significant contribution to the scientific literature?
  • Is the manuscript content relevant for the conference/series’ theme and scope?
  • Does the language of the manuscript adhere to the conventions of internationally acceptable English and scientific discourse?
  • Does manuscript follow a valid, rigorous and scientifically accepted methodology?
  • Are the research design and consistency of results in the manuscript properly presented?
  • Are the discussions of the results and conclusions aligned with the research objectives and do they adequately answer the research questions?
  • Are the implications relevant and aligned to the purpose of the study?


Reviewers should ensure that manuscripts meet the following technical criteria:

  • Is the title suitable for the content presented in the manuscript?
  • Does the abstract range between 150-250 words while briefly summarizing the goals, methods, and new results presented in the manuscript in a single paragraph?
  • Are relevant keywords between 3-5, used to reflect the content of the manuscript?
  • Does the manuscript adhere to the 5000-word limit (excluding the abstract, reference list, figures, or tables) which may be extended to 8000 words to incorporate the reviewers’ comments?
  • Are the tables/diagrams/figures embedded in the manuscript correctly captioned and listed sequentially in the text? are these visuals essential and easy to comprehend by the readers?
  • Are the majority of references current and relevant literature? Have the references referring to a primary source been accurately cited using APA7th edition?


For further details on technical criteria, please refer to the Manuscript Preparation Guidance for Proceedings Authors



Further Reminders

Reviewers are reminded:

  • to check the length of the article – does it reflect the level of scientific content and fit within any relevant page limits?
  • that in cases where they feel that they are unqualified to review the manuscript, or does not have the time to review the manuscript, the manuscript should be deleted and the editor should be informed without undue delay. On no account should the reviewers retain the manuscript for any personal or commercial use.
  • that it is essential to judge the manuscript objectively and in a timely fashion. Reviewers should refrain from making personal, subjective, and/or biased comments in their reviews.
  • that in case of a conflict of interest, the editor should be immediately informed. Specifically, reviewers should not review manuscripts authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewers have a close personal or professional relationship, if this relationship could be reasonably thought to bias the review.
  • that it is important to explain and support the judgements so that editors and authors may understand the basis of the comments, and to provide reference to published work, where appropriate.
  • that it is also necessary to inform the editor of any similarity between the submitted manuscript and another work either published or under consideration by another publisher.
  • that it is absolutely essential to ensure that all unpublished data, information, interpretation, and discussion in a submitted manuscript remain confidential and not to be used for reviewers’ own research or as teaching material.
  • that if the manuscript contains or appears to contain plagiarised material, falsified or manipulated data, the editor should be immediately informed.
  • that the author/s may be requested to include citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) own work as this adds value to the scientific aspects of the manuscript.
  • that in order to comply with data protection regulations, it is absolutely necessary not to retain or duplicate the submitted manuscript in any form.
  • that it is unethical and absolutely prohibited to use information obtained during the peer review process for the reviewer’s own or any other person’s or organisation’s advantage, or to or discredit others.
  • that they must obtain the permission of the editor and the publisher if they wish to use any material from an unpublished manuscript for their own purposes.
  • that they may be subject to legal actions by the publisher and the author/s if the previous two conditions are violated.



Peer review is a fundamental part of academic publishing. At European Proceedings, the peer review process is seen as the cornerstone of reliable, renowned, and responsible scientific publications.

Publons not only allows your contributions as a peer reviewer to be recognized by the academic community, but also increases the credibility and visibility of the series.

To gain recognition for your contribution and enhance the credibility and impact of our series among the academic community, we are inviting you to add your peer review records and endorse our series through