Guidelines for Reviewers

Nullius adopts the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and internationally recognized editorial best practices as its reference framework. The work of reviewers is essential to ensure the scientific quality, integrity and transparency of the editorial process.

1. Preliminary screening by the Editorial Committee

Manuscripts sent out for external review have been previously assessed by the Editorial Committee, which may exclude those that:

  • Do not fit the research lines established by the journal.
  • Do not comply with the journal’s Instructions for authors.
  • Breach academic ethics (lack of originality, plagiarism, self plagiarism, data manipulation, etc.).
  • Do not adhere to the editorial and research good practices defined by the journal.
  • Show signs of editorial inbreeding contrary to Nullius’ diversity policies.

This preliminary screening does not prevent authors from revising and resubmitting a manuscript that has been returned for editorial reasons, provided that they address the comments received.

2. Responsibilities of reviewers

Reviewers invited to provide an evaluation or recommendation on a manuscript undertake to:

  • Accept only the review of manuscripts that match their academic expertise and research profile.
  • Submit their reports within the deadlines set by the journal or, if unable to do so, inform the editor immediately.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the content of manuscripts before, during and after the review process.
  • Not contact the authors of the manuscript directly; all communication must be channelled through the editorial team.
  • Provide objective, well reasoned and constructive evaluations, helping to improve the scientific quality and clarity of the text.
  • Provide differentiated comments: some addressed to the authors and, where necessary, confidential observations addressed to the editor.

Reviewers’ decisions and recommendations are independent and must not be influenced by the personal views of the editors.

3. Selection and acceptance of reviewers

  • Reviewers are part of the journal’s reviewer database and must have a track record and specialization in research lines consistent with the assigned manuscript.
  • Acceptance or decline of the invitation to review a manuscript must be explicit; declining an invitation has no negative consequences and is even recommended when there are conflicts of interest or lack of expertise.
  • As a general rule, reviews are conducted under a double blind model (anonymous authorship and review), in accordance with Nullius’ peer review policy.

4. Review outcome

After evaluating the manuscript, the reviewer must select one of the following options:

  • Accepted: the manuscript meets the journal’s scientific and editorial standards; it may require only minor adjustments suggested by the reviewer.
  • Accepted with revisions: the manuscript is relevant and has publication potential, but it requires substantial changes (in design, analysis, argumentation or writing) to reach the required quality level.
  • Rejected: the manuscript cannot be published due to substantive shortcomings (for example, in the abstract, objectives, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions or references) or because it does not meet the editorial quality criteria or the journal’s research lines.

In all cases, the reviewer undertakes to justify their recommendation with clear, respectful technical and scientific arguments.

5. Ethical recommendations for reviewers

Reviewers must observe the following ethical guidelines:

  • Do not express opinions based on any type of discrimination (racial, gender based, political, ideological, religious, cultural, national or other).
  • Do not use the data, results, ideas or information contained in the manuscript for their own benefit or that of third parties, either before or after publication.
  • Safeguard at all times the confidentiality of the information contained in the manuscript.
  • Explicitly disclose to the editor any real or potential conflict of interest (academic, professional, commercial, personal or other) and refrain from evaluating the manuscript when such conflict may affect their independence.
  • Refrain from reviewing manuscripts when they are researching or working on a very similar topic, are part of the same research project, or have a close relationship with the authors.
  • Be constructive, clear and respectful in their comments, avoiding personal attacks and offering suggestions that help to improve the work.

Through these guidelines, Nullius seeks to ensure that peer review is conducted in accordance with the highest standards of integrity, fairness and scientific quality recognized by the international academic community.