Introduction
The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.
Peer Review Policy
All submissions to REPE Conference are first reviewed for completeness and only then sent to be assessed by the Programme Chairs and Programme Committee members of the respective conference, with help from external reviewers selected by them. A member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to oversee peer review. Editors will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision, but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the Editor themself may result in the manuscript being rejected. Authors receive peer review reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript.
Use of AI in Review
Hinweis REPE Conference reviewers will not use any AI tools for reviewing the papers. AI tools have considerable limitations, they can lack up-to-date knowledge and may produce nonsensical, biased or false information.
Peer reviewer selection
Peer reviewer selection is critical to the publication process. It is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, conflict of interest and previous performance. Speed, thoroughness, sound reasoning and cooperation are highly desirable.
Editor Responsibilities
Editor(s) are expected to obtain a minimum of two peer reviewers for manuscripts reporting primary research or secondary analysis of primary research. It is recognized that in some exceptional circumstances, particularly in niche and emerging fields, it may not be possible to obtain two independent peer reviewers. In such cases, Editor(s) may wish to make a decision to publish based on one peer review report. When making a decision based on one report, Editor(s) are expected to only do so if the peer review report meets the standards set out below.
» Peer review reports should be in English and provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors’ work, particularly in relation to the appropriateness of methods used, whether the results are accurate, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Editorial decisions should be based on peer reviewer comments that meet these criteria rather than on recommendations made by short, superficial peer reviewer reports which do not provide a rationale for the recommendations.
» Editor(s) are expected to independently verify the contact details of reviewers suggested by authors or other third parties. Institutional email addresses should be used to invite peer reviewers wherever possible. Each manuscript should be reviewed by at least one reviewer who was not suggested by the author.
Peer Reviewer Diversity
Hinweis Editors are strongly encouraged to consider geographical regions, gender identities, racial/ethnic groups, and other groups when inviting peer reviewers.
Peer Reviewer Misconduct
Providing false or misleading information—for example, identity theft and suggesting fake peer-reviewers—will result in rejection of the manuscript.
Peer Review Models
»Open Peer Review: Peer reviewers' names are included on the peer review reports. If the manuscript is published, reports with peer reviewer names are published online alongside the article (on rare occasions, information from the pre-publication history may not be available for a specific article). Authors are aware of the peer reviewers’ names during the peer-review process and vice versa. There should not be direct correspondence between authors and peer reviewers; communication is mediated by the Editor.
»Transparent Peer Review: If the manuscript is published, the peer review reports appear online alongside the article. Names of peer reviewers are not published. On rare occasions, information from the pre-publication history may not be available for a specific article.
»Anonymized Peer Review: Hinweis REPE Conferences use a single-anonymized peer review process; that is, author identities are known to peer reviewers, but peer reviewers’ identities are not revealed to the authors. In double-anonymized peer review, identities of neither authors nor peer reviewers are disclosed. The pre-publication history of articles is not made available online