Your review shapes science. Here's how to do it well.

Before you begin

Before you accept or decline a review invitation, ask yourself:

• Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you're confident you can deliver a high-quality review

• Do you have a potential conflict of interestopens in new tab/window? Disclose it to the editor when you respond

• Do you have the time? Reviewing takes real work, so before committing, make sure you can meet the deadline

• Want to learn more about the peer review process? Check the free tutorials at Elsevier Researcher Academyopens in new tab/window, including the certified peer reviewer courseopens in new tab/window

• Familiar with our reviewer policies? If not, or if it's been a while, take a look

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can, even to decline, since a delay slows the whole process and leaves the author waiting. If you decline, it’s a good practice to suggest alternative reviewers so that the authors can get timely feedback.

Managing your review

Confidential material

Once you accept, treat everything you receive as confidential. Don't share it with anyone without the editor's authorization, and since peer review itself is confidential, that includes information about the review, not just the manuscript.

The use of generative AI in the reviewing process

AI is becoming a common part of research, and peer review is no exception. Used thoughtfully with the right tools and clear disclosure, it can help reviewers focus their time and energy on what matters most: the quality of their assessment. Combined with the confidentiality every submission is owed, this shapes our generative AI policies for reviewers and editors.

• Don't upload the manuscript, or any part of it, into an AI tool, even if it is private. Doing so might violate the authors’ confidentiality, proprietary and data privacy rights

• AI tools may support you, for example by improving the language and structure of a review report or assisting a background literature search, but only with confidentiality intact and human oversight throughout

• Use private AI tools only: ones that don’t retain, reuse, share or learn from what you submit. Check whether your institution offers an enterprise version or a locally hosted model, which are more likely to protect privacy, though you should still verify with your institute.

• If you use AI to improve the language or structure of your report, disclose it: name the tool and the reason you used it. Basic spelling and grammar checks don’t need disclosure.

Suggested disclosure statement: During the preparation of this report, I used [NAME OF TOOL / SERVICE] in order to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, I reviewed and edited the content as needed and I take full responsibility for its content.

Read the full generative AI policy for journals

Elsevier uses AI-driven technology to support editors and reviewers, for example for checking submissions for completeness, supporting research integrity checks and identifying suitable reviewers. These tools conform to the RELX Responsible AI Principles and serve as a valuable support mechanism which empowers our experts to make informed decisions. Our technologies are subject to rigorous evaluation of bias and are compliant with data privacy and data security requirements.

Logging in and accessing your review

Your review is delivered and managed through an Elsevier submission system such as Editorial Manageropens in new tab/window. Because different journals use different systems, there's no single login link, so use the one in your invitation email to access the correct submission system.

The new peer review experience

Elsevier has built a new peer review experience in Editorial Manager, bringing reviewer comments, author responses and editor comments together in one place. It's a clearer, faster way for reviewers, authors and editors to communicate, and it gives editors what they need to decide sooner. Reviewers have responded positively to the new experience, and their feedback continues to shape how it develops. Read our reviewer guide to the new peer review experienceopens in new tab/window to learn how to submit through it.

Structuring your peer review report

Before you write, check the journal-specific guidelines; you’ll find them in the guide for authors on each journal's homepage. Many of our journals use structured peer review for research and review articles, which gives you a framework for recommending improvements, covering aspects such as data analysis quality, reproducibility and overall clarity. Structuring your review this way helps editors and authors understand exactly what you mean and why and lets you distinguish your own opinion from what the data actually show. Whatever the journal for which you are reviewing, we recommend using this guidance as you prepare your report. Below are the elements to consider for the most common article types. Download the guidanceopens in new tab/window

Researcher Academy: How to write a helpful peer review report opens in new tab/window

Research integrity and peer review

Peer review is one of the strongest safeguards of the research record. As a reviewer, you are well placed to notice problems that other checks might miss: data or images that look altered, results that seem too clean, text that might be plagiarized, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or claims that go beyond the evidence.

You are not expected to investigate. If something looks wrong, describe what you have seen and raise it with the editor, who will follow the journal's process. Every submission also goes through integrity checks using technology and human oversight, but your judgment remains central to protecting the record. For more information, see Elsevier's publishing ethics pages and the COPE guidelines for peer reviewersopens in new tab/window.

Evaluating an original research article

• Title — Does it accurately and fully describe the content? Consider discoverability too. For some research types, such as randomized controlled trials, the study type should appear in the title.

• Abstract — Does it reflect every essential aspect of the study, including the major results and limitations?

• Introduction — Is the background and literature review current and relevant? Does the introduction clearly explain the scientific rationale, and are the primary and secondary objectives stated clearly at the end?

• Methods — Are the theory, applicability and modeling described in sufficient detail for others to replicate the study? Where relevant, is the experimental design identified (RCT, case-control, cohort or cross-sectional), and is the patient population described with a proper sample size estimation and literature-backed rationale for the minimal clinically important difference (MCID)? Are statistical elements — controls, sampling, p-values, confidence intervals, effect sizes — described appropriately?

• Results — Do the tables and figures present the findings clearly? If there is statistical analysis, is anything missing, such as confidence intervals, effect sizes or sensitivity analyses?

• Discussion — Are the interpretation and conclusions supported by the data and design? Have the authors been clear about the study's limitations, including theoretical and methodological ones?

• References — Are they current and relevant to the topic?

• Language quality — Would the manuscript benefit from professional language editing? Offer brief suggestions if so.

• Overall — Say whether the research is novel or important for the journal or field — reproducibility, for instance, counts — and whether it supports the journal's educational goals. Every paper goes through integrity checks but flag any ethical concerns you notice.

Evaluating a review article

• Overall relevance — Do the authors justify why this review is needed? Suggest ways to strengthen that case if not.

• Historical development and insights — Does the review cover the field's history comprehensively and point to future directions? Note any developments or trends worth adding or emphasizing.

• References — Do the authors cover the most relevant, recent advances, including the key research groups? Suggest additions — foundational studies, recent publications, topics — where the reference list falls short.

• Methods and reproducibility — Is there enough methodological detail — search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, risk-of-bias assessment, summary methods — for someone else to reproduce the review? Suggest ways to improve transparency.

• Statistical analyses — Are methods like meta-analysis or meta-regression appropriate and clearly reported, including p-values and 95% confidence intervals? Say whether a statistician should review it, and suggest improvements to sampling, controls or reporting.

• Essential reporting requirements — Is the structure clear? Suggest reorganizing subheadings, tightening the text or aligning more closely with reporting standards such as PRISMA.

• Language quality — Would the manuscript benefit from professional language editing? Offer brief suggestions if so.

Sex and gender reporting

Peer review is a late stage to raise this — the study is already done, the data already analyzed — but it still matters for effective, transparent and complete sex and gender reporting. Check whether the manuscript includes sex-disaggregated data and gender analysis. The study might not have been designed to examine either — but consider whether sex and gender are relevant to the topic, and whether the study follows applicable guidelines. As a general principle, the SAGER guidelinesopens in new tab/window call for careful, distinct use of the words "sex" and "gender." Consistent definitions make it easier to run meta-analyses across published and archived data. "Sex" should refer to the biological classification of male or female, wherever that can be confirmed. As Heidari et al.opens in new tab/window put it, gender describes the social roles, behaviors and identities of female, male and gender-diverse people, shaping how people see themselves and each other and how power and resources are distributed. Check that the methods section states how participants' sex was determined — self-report, physical examination or genetic testing. Animal studies should use the term "sex." Cell, molecular or biochemical studies should state the sex chromosome makeup of the cells or tissue used — or explain why it is unknown. In other fields, such as testing devices or technology, check whether the authors considered use across genders and tested accordingly. And check whether the introduction accounts for prior research on sex or gender differences, with a rationale for whether the current study examined them. If the study covers only one sex or gender, that choice should be justified. If it covers more than one, data should be reported for all groups recorded, disaggregated by sex or gender, in the main text, appendix or supplementary material. Assess whether the methodology can actually capture sex and gender effects, and — if needed — request subgroup analysis. Finally, check that the discussion section acknowledges any limitation from a lack of sex- or gender-based analysis, and what that means for how the findings generalize. Again: the study might not have set out to analyze sex and gender, but it is worth considering whether it should have, and whether applicable guidelines were followed.

Researcher Academy: Sex and Gender Equity in Researcher (SAGER) guidelinesopens in new tab/window

Research data and visualizations

Once you are satisfied the methodology holds up, look closely at the figures, tables and images. Authors might include research data and data visualizations so readers can engage more deeply with the research after publication — which means links to data might appear in the submission files, and consequently they also deserve your attention. Manuscripts might also include database identifiers or accession numbers, such as gene references, tied to our database linking program.

Be alertfor major flaws: insufficient data points, statistically non-significant variation or unclear tables. For some visualization types, preview tools let you see how files will render on ScienceDirect if the manuscript is accepted. For others, there are other ways to inspect the files.

Researcher Academy: How do I review a data article?opens in new tab/window

Ethical considerations

Studies involving patient or animal data need proper documentation, and most journals require ethical approval from the author's host institution. Check the journal-specific guidelines, available via the journal catalog.

Researcher Academy: Ethics responsibilities for peer reviewersopens in new tab/window

Before you write

If nothing major stands out, step back from the manuscript and give yourself time to think. Come back to it from your own perspective and revisit the journal’s guide for authors once more before you start writing.

Finalizing your review

Your review serves two people: the editor deciding whether to publish, and the author who needs clear, constructive guidance to improve their work. Be courteous, be specific and keep your comments strictly professional, with no personal remarks or identifying details, unless the journal for which you are reviewing uses "identity transparency".

What makes a great review

Some journals set their own format for structuring feedback, for instance via a questionnaire. If yours does not, here are some best practices to keep in mind:

Do

• Summarize the article in a short paragraph, so the editor knows you have read and understood the research

• Share your main impressions: is it novel, interesting, sufficiently impactful, does it add to the field's knowledge?

• Use short, clearly defined paragraphs so the editor and author can see exactly what you are referring to

• Check that the article follows the journal's own instructions, such as its guide for authors

• Be specific: does the title reflect the content? Is the abstract complete and self-contained?

• Review the graphical abstract and highlights, if included

• Stick to the facts, don't speculate about the authors' motives

• Go carefully through the methodology, statistics, results, discussion and references

• Comment on how the data are presented, whether the methodology is sustainable and reproducible, how the data were analyzed and whether the conclusions follow from this

• Raise any suspicion of plagiarism, falsification or other ethical concerns with the editor, with as much detail as you can — see Elsevier's ethics page or the COPE guidelinesopens in new tab/window

• Stay alert to your own bias, unconscious biasopens in new tab/window can shape decisions in ways that hurt the publishing process

Do not

• Feel obliged to comment on spelling, grammar or layout — if the research is sound but the language needs work, recommend language editing to the editor instead

• Make personal comments about the authors

• Dismiss viewpoints or theories that conflict with your own, stay open as you review

• Share the review, or anything about it, without the editors' and authors' agreement. Under COPE guidelinesopens in new tab/window, manuscripts stay confidential during and after publication, unless the journal publishes peer review comments

• Ask authors to cite your work, or your associates', unless there's a genuine academic reason, never to boost citation counts or visibility

Deciding on your recommendation

When you submit your review, you will choose a decision recommendation. This helps editors weigh the evidence, though the final call is always the editor's:

• Reject (explain your reasoning in your report)

• Accept without revision

• Revise — either major or minor; explain what's needed, and tell the editor whether you are willing to review the revision. Recommending a revision means agreeing to a follow-up review once the authors respond to your comments

You'll have the chance to leave separate comments for the editor and for the authors. Once you are ready, follow the instructions in your invitation email, or visit our support centeropens in new tab/window if you run into trouble.

The final decision

The editor decides whether to accept or reject the article. Elsevier has no part in that decision. The editor weighs every review, and might seek another opinion or ask for a revision first. If the journal has opted in, you’ll be notified of the final decision through the submission system.

After your review

Once you have submitted your review, visit Elsevier's Reviewer Hubopens in new tab/window to get credit for your work. It gives you a private profile, certificates and editor recognition. Even after your review is done, treat the article and any linked data as confidential. Don't share them, or information about the review, without the editor's authorization.