For Reviewers

Peer-Review Process

The EBR employs a double-blind peer-review process for all submitted manuscripts, except editorials, which means that the identity of authors is not disclosed to reviewers and vice versa. Authors can propose up to three potential reviewers with expertise in the manuscript’s area of research, however, reviewers are nominated independently by the EBR editors. Typically, each submitted manuscript is independently reviewed by two reviewers.

The reviewers can recommend that the paper is accepted, rejected, a major revision or minor revision is needed. In their evaluation, reviewers should take into account the nature of their concerns and the ability of authors to address them in a reasonable amount of time and with a reasonable amount of work. Minor revision should typically require authors to revise the manuscript within one month. Major revision should typically require up to three months. Manuscripts should typically be rejected if authors cannot improve the manuscript within two rounds of reviews. Any recommendation has to be sufficiently motivated.

Based on the reviewers' assessment and recommendations, the subject editor proposes one of the following decisions regarding the manuscript: accept, reject, or revise. As a principle, the Editor-in-Chief relies on these judgments when making the final decision regarding the publication of manuscripts, but Editor-in-Chief has the final authority for the acceptance/rejection of an article.

Duties of Reviewers

  • Contribution to editorial decisions
    Reviewers assist the editorial team in making editorial decisions. Reviews should be conducted timely, objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

  • Qualification of reviewers
    Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

  • Confidentiality
    Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. If the reviewer has specific, paper-related concerns, s(he) should discuss them with the subject editor (or Editor-in-Chief) only.

  • Acknowledgment of sources
    Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. References to the ideas of others should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.