Become a reviewer

Reviewers are vital to the Gazettes community. We recognize the fact that scientific progress depends on a robust peer review process and exchange of information that can be trusted.

To acknowledge the work of our reviewers we periodically select those who have made significant contributions to our Journals. Each receives a certificate of recognition and a lifetime discount on our materials.

People who submit manuscripts to Gazettes are automatically considered for reviewing the submissions of their peers. Our editors will approach authors who they deem to be suitable for reviewing. Alternatively, please check the Directory and contact editors if you would like to review for us.

It is important that current and prospective reviewers read our editorial policy. Guidelines for reviewing are below.

Gazettes receives more submissions than it can publish. We ask reviewers to keep this in mind, and the fact that every manuscript being accepted means a good manuscript being rejected. To be published in one of our Journals, a manuscript must advance scientific understanding and be influential in its domain. It should present novel and important information and provide strong evidence for its conclusions. It should also appeal to researchers in related disciplines. Gazettes does not use the peer review process to screen manuscripts based on importance, but rather to determine whether a manuscript follows scientific rigor and meets the policies for inclusion in the published records.

In general reviewers should see whether:

1. The manuscript presents the results of a primary scientific study not published elsewhere, in an intelligible manner, in standard American English;
2. Methods are described in sufficient detail and conform to high technical standards, and conclusions are presented in a clear, coherent manner, supported by the data;
3. The research work meets all standards of ethics and integrity, and does not pose a risk to the community upon publishing.


Gazettes peer review process is the first, most comprehensive and advanced review process in the scientific world with double-blind, single-blind, and transparent review options for authors and reviewers.

Authors who choose the blind option at submission will remain anonymous to the reviewers throughout editorial consideration. The manuscript must be anonymized accordingly by omitting names and affiliations and entering these details in the submission portal alone should be sufficient. If reviewers choose the blind option, their names will not be disclosed to the authors. For the transparent option, authors will need to include names and affiliations in the manuscript. Reviewers will need to sign their names for the authors and all reviewers of the manuscript to see. The names of the reviewers will accompany the comments if the authors choose to publish their peer review history. Likewise, the Journal may wish to publish author rebuttals with their names.


Reviewers must aim to submit their reports within a week or by the deadline suggested in the invitation email. If unable, the reviewer must inform the editor at the earliest.

When writing a report, the reviewer should consider:

1. Suitability of the article for the Journal;
2. Strengths of the work;
3. Weaknesses of the work;
4. Originality and significance of the work;
5. Whether the title reflects the content;
6. Whether the abstract is a standalone piece;
7. Whether the data can reproduce the results;
8. Whether the conclusions are valid;
9. Whether referencing is appropriate;
10. Whether the length of the article is justified.

Please indicate in your report which are the major concerns preventing publication, and which are the minor concerns the authors can easily address.


Along with the report, the reviewer should submit a recommendation to the editor:

1. Accept. The manuscript is suitable for publication in its submitted form;
2. Level I revisions required. The manuscript may be suitable for publication after the authors have responded to the reviewer comments and made small changes such as including additional references or rewriting some sections;
3. Level II revisions required. The manuscript may be suitable for publication after the authors have responded to the reviewer comments and made moderate changes such as rewriting several sections;
4. Level III revisions required. The manuscript may be suitable for publication after the authors have responded to the reviewer comments and made extensive changes such as redoing experiments;
5. Reject with reservations. The manuscript is rejected but further work might justify a resubmission;
6. Reject without reservations. The manuscript is not suitable and should not be considered further.