Peer Review Policy

Emergent Life Sciences Research (ELSR) is committed to a fair, independent, confidential, and scientifically rigorous peer-review process.

Peer review is an essential part of the journal's editorial evaluation and is intended to assess the scientific quality, originality, methodological reliability, clarity, and significance of submitted manuscripts.

All manuscripts considered suitable for external evaluation are reviewed by independent experts with relevant knowledge of the subject area.

 

1. Peer Review Model

ELSR follows a double-anonymous peer review process.

Under this model:

  • The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers.
  • The identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

Authors should prepare their manuscripts in a manner that supports anonymous review and should avoid including unnecessary information in the main manuscript that directly identifies the authors or their institutions.

Author names, affiliations, and corresponding author information should be provided separately in the Title Page.

Although the journal takes reasonable steps to protect anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when the subject area, methodology, datasets, preprints, or previous publications may allow an individual's identity to be inferred.

 

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before external peer review.

The Editorial Office and Editors may assess whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the aims and scope of ELSR.
  • Meets the basic requirements of the ELSR Guide for Authors.
  • Presents an appropriate scientific question or objective.
  • Demonstrates sufficient originality and scientific quality.
  • Uses suitable research methods and analytical approaches.
  • Includes the required declarations and supporting information.
  • Complies with relevant publication ethics and research integrity requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or declined without external peer review.

Only manuscripts considered suitable for further scientific evaluation are normally sent for peer review.

 

3. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their scientific expertise and their ability to evaluate the subject and methodology of the submitted manuscript.

When selecting reviewers, Editors may consider:

  • Relevant research expertise.
  • Knowledge of the scientific subject.
  • Experience with the methodology used in the study.
  • Publication record in the relevant field.
  • Ability to provide an objective and constructive assessment.
  • Availability to complete the review within the requested timeframe.
  • Absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

The journal seeks to select reviewers who are independent of the authors and the research being evaluated.

The final selection of reviewers is the responsibility of the Editor handling the manuscript.

 

4. Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise.

In some cases, additional reviewers may be invited.

An additional review may be considered when:

  • Reviewer recommendations differ substantially.
  • Additional methodological expertise is required.
  • Statistical or technical evaluation is necessary.
  • An ethical or scientific concern requires specialist assessment.
  • The Editor determines that further evaluation would support a fair editorial decision.

The number of reviewer reports obtained may vary depending on the nature of the manuscript and the editorial circumstances.

 

5. Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are expected to provide an independent, objective, and impartial assessment of every manuscript.

ELSR follows a double-anonymous peer review model. However, in some circumstances, a reviewer may infer or become aware of the identity of one or more authors through the manuscript content, previous publications, publicly available preprints, conference presentations, research datasets, or other publicly available information.

If a reviewer becomes aware of the identity of an author and believes that a real or perceived conflict of interest may affect their objectivity, the reviewer should promptly inform the Editor and, where appropriate, decline the review invitation.

Potential conflicts of interest may include:

  • Recent or ongoing research collaboration with an author.
  • A close personal or professional relationship with an author.
  • Employment at the same institution or another relationship that could reasonably affect impartiality.
  • Financial or commercial interests related to the research.
  • Direct involvement in the work being evaluated.
  • Any other scientific, academic, or professional circumstance that may prevent an objective and independent assessment.

Reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors of an anonymized manuscript. If a reviewer recognizes or reasonably believes they have identified the author(s), and this may create a real or perceived conflict of interest or otherwise compromise the integrity of the review process, the reviewer should promptly inform the Editor. The Editor will determine whether the reviewer may continue with the review or whether an alternative reviewer should be appointed.

 

6. Confidentiality of Peer Review

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share the manuscript with unauthorized individuals.
  • Discuss the manuscript or its contents with others without editorial permission.
  • Use unpublished data, information, or ideas obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.
  • Contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript.
  • Publicly disclose their involvement in the review process without authorization from the journal.

If a reviewer wishes to consult another individual regarding a specific technical matter, prior permission should be obtained from the Editor.

Any individual who assists with a review must also maintain confidentiality.

 

7. Reviewer Assessment

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively.

The review should consider, where relevant:

  • Originality of the research.
  • Scientific quality.
  • Importance of the research question.
  • Appropriateness of the study design.
  • Adequacy of the methodology.
  • Quality and reliability of the data.
  • Appropriateness of statistical or analytical methods.
  • Interpretation of the results.
  • Relationship of the findings to existing knowledge.
  • Significance of the scientific contribution.
  • Clarity and organization of the manuscript.
  • Quality of tables and figures.
  • Adequacy and relevance of references.
  • Ethical and research integrity considerations.

Reviewers should clearly identify major scientific concerns and distinguish them from minor editorial or presentation issues.

Comments should be professional, specific, and intended to help the Editor evaluate the manuscript and, where appropriate, help the authors improve their work.

Personal criticism, offensive language, or inappropriate comments are not acceptable.

 

8. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers may provide a recommendation such as:

  • Accept.
  • Minor Revision.
  • Major Revision.
  • Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory.

The final editorial decision is made by the responsible Editor after considering the reviewer reports, the scientific quality of the manuscript, and the journal's editorial standards.

The Editor is not required to follow a reviewer recommendation when there are clear scientific, ethical, or editorial reasons for a different decision.

 

9. Conflicting Reviewer Reports

Reviewer reports may occasionally differ in their assessment or recommendations.

When substantial differences occur, the Editor will evaluate the scientific arguments presented in each report.

The Editor may:

  • Make a decision based on the available reports.
  • Request clarification from a reviewer.
  • Invite an additional independent reviewer.
  • Seek advice from another Editor or an appropriate subject specialist.

Editorial decisions are based on the scientific substance of the reviewer comments rather than on a simple numerical majority of reviewer recommendations.

 

10. Revision of Manuscripts

Authors who receive a revision request should carefully consider all reviewer and editorial comments.

A revised submission should normally include:

  • A revised manuscript.
  • A detailed point-by-point response to reviewer and editorial comments.
  • A clear explanation of the changes made.
  • A scientific justification where a suggested change has not been made.

Authors should respond professionally and provide sufficient information to allow the Editor and reviewers to evaluate the revision.

A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance of the manuscript.

 

11. Re-Review of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers when additional scientific evaluation is required.

Re-review may be particularly appropriate for manuscripts undergoing major revision.

The Editor may decide that further external review is not necessary when the revisions are limited, clearly addressed, or primarily editorial in nature.

The decision to obtain additional reviewer assessment is made by the responsible Editor.

 

12. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process.
  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively and impartially.
  • Provide clear, constructive, and scientifically reasoned comments.
  • Declare relevant conflicts of interest.
  • Complete reviews within the requested timeframe whenever possible.
  • Inform the Editor if they are unable to complete the review.
  • Identify relevant scientific or ethical concerns.
  • Avoid using unpublished information obtained through peer review.
  • Avoid personal, discriminatory, or inappropriate comments.
  • Notify the Editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data concerns, image manipulation, or other potential publication misconduct.

Reviewers should evaluate the work presented in the manuscript and should not allow personal disagreement or professional competition to influence their assessment.

 

13. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts submitted to ELSR.

Reviewers should not upload unpublished manuscripts, manuscript sections, figures, tables, supplementary files, or confidential editorial information to publicly accessible generative AI systems or other external tools where confidentiality, data retention, or secondary use of the submitted content cannot be adequately controlled.

Artificial intelligence tools must not replace the reviewer's independent scientific assessment and professional judgment.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, and integrity of their reviewer reports.

If the use of an AI-assisted tool creates a potential confidentiality, data protection, or integrity concern, the reviewer should not use the tool.

 

14. Ethical Concerns Identified During Peer Review

If a reviewer identifies a potential concern relating to:

  • Plagiarism.
  • Duplicate or overlapping publication.
  • Data fabrication or falsification.
  • Image manipulation.
  • Inappropriate statistical reporting.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Authorship concerns.
  • Ethical approval.
  • Research integrity.

the reviewer should inform the Editor through the confidential review process.

Reviewers should provide sufficient information to explain the concern but should not directly investigate or contact the authors.

The Editorial Office and Editors are responsible for determining the appropriate editorial action.

 

15. Editorial Decisions Following Peer Review

After peer review, the Editor evaluates the manuscript and the reviewer reports before making an editorial decision.

Possible decisions include:

  • Accept.
  • Minor Revision.
  • Major Revision.
  • Reject.

The Editor may consider the scientific arguments provided by reviewers, the authors' responses, and any additional editorial or specialist assessment.

Acceptance is based on the overall scientific and ethical evaluation of the manuscript and is not determined solely by reviewer recommendations.

 

16. Appeals Related to Peer Review

Authors who believe that a significant scientific or procedural issue affected the peer-review process may submit a reasoned appeal.

An appeal should clearly identify the issue and provide relevant scientific or procedural justification.

Disagreement with reviewer comments or an editorial decision alone is not sufficient unless the authors can identify a substantive concern that may have affected the evaluation of the manuscript.

Appeals are handled according to the ELSR Appeals & Complaints Policy.

 

17. Quality and Oversight of Peer Review

ELSR seeks to maintain the quality, fairness, and integrity of its peer-review process.

Editors may evaluate the quality and usefulness of reviewer reports and may discontinue the use of reviewers who repeatedly provide:

  • Inadequate or superficial reviews.
  • Inappropriate or unprofessional comments.
  • Reviews affected by undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Unreasonable or unsupported recommendations.
  • Reports that do not meet the journal's standards of confidentiality or scientific evaluation.

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Office oversee the implementation of the peer-review process.

ELSR may review and update its peer-review procedures when necessary to support responsible and effective scholarly publishing.