Reviewer Guideline

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play a central role in maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of papers published in Scientific Reports in Life Sciences (SRLS). The journal is very grateful for the time and expertise reviewers provide. The following guidelines outline expectations for reviewers and describe how their reports are used in the editorial process.

Peer review process
SRLS operates a double‑blind peer‑review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other. After an initial suitability check, a handling editor is assigned and invites external reviewers with relevant expertise. At least two detailed review reports are required for each manuscript. Based on these reports, the handling editor makes a recommendation to the Editor‑in‑Chief, who takes the final decision. Accepted papers are then copy‑edited and language‑edited before publication.

Reviewer responsibilities

• Accepting or declining invitations: Reviewers are asked to accept or decline review invitations as soon as possible, based on the title and abstract. If you are unable to review, it is helpful to suggest one or more qualified alternatives.

• Timeliness: Reviews should be submitted within the agreed deadline. If more time is needed, reviewers should contact the editorial office to request an extension.

• Scope and quality of assessment: Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts for originality, scientific soundness, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, relevance to the journal’s scope, and quality of English. The report should include both an overall recommendation (e.g., accept, minor revision, major revision, reject) and specific, constructive comments to help authors improve their work.

• Citation practices: Reviewers should pay attention to the reference list and flag inappropriate self‑citation or missing key references. Requests for additional citations should be justified by clear scientific need, not personal or journal‑level promotion.

Conflicts of interest
Reviewers must immediately inform the editor if they have any potential conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality, whether positive or negative. Examples include recent or current collaboration with the authors, shared institutional affiliations, financial interests, or personal relationships. In such cases, reviewers should decline the invitation or explain the situation so that the editor can decide how to proceed. Having previously reviewed the same manuscript for another journal is not, by itself, a conflict of interest; however, reviewers are encouraged to inform SRLS if this is the case and to indicate whether the manuscript has improved compared with earlier versions.

Confidentiality and anonymity
All manuscripts and related correspondence must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share or discuss the manuscript with others without prior permission from the journal, nor may they use any unpublished information for personal advantage. Because SRLS uses double‑blind review, reviewers should take care that their comments and any attachments do not reveal their identity. After submitting their report, reviewers may be able to see anonymized reports from other reviewers for the same manuscript through the online system.

Raising concerns about ethics and integrity
Reviewers are asked to alert the editor promptly if they suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or any other form of research or publication misconduct. Concerns about ethical approval for human or animal research, informed consent, or inadequate reporting of methods should also be clearly flagged in the review report or in confidential comments to the editor.

By following these guidelines, reviewers help SRLS ensure a fair, rigorous, and transparent peer‑review process and support the publication of high‑quality, ethically robust research in the life sciences.