Only accepted work is recordedAboutGuidesContactSign in
CitePepCitePep
Guides/Reviewer handbook
Reviewer handbook · Version 1.2

Guidance for reviewers of pre-submission manuscripts

Summary. This handbook sets out how CitePep reviewers prepare for, accept, write and deliver a review. It describes the structure of a report, the grading of findings, and the obligations of confidentiality and independence that apply to every review. It is read alongside the Editorial standards.

Applies to
All verified reviewers
Maintained by
CitePep editorial standards
Last revised
12 September 2026
Sections
4 parts · 11 sections
Reading time
About 45 minutes
Download PDFRevision history
Box 1

Principles governing every review

  1. Confidentiality. The manuscript and the report are disclosed to the author only, who may attach the report to a submission.
  2. Independence. Reviewers declare any conflict before reading and review only authors outside their own institution, co-authors and email domain.
  3. Payment independent of outcome. The fee is fixed at acceptance and stays the same whatever the report concludes.
  4. Timeliness. Reports are delivered by the agreed date; foreseeable delays are communicated to the author in advance.

1.Preparing to review

Before any invitation, a reviewer’s profile determines which manuscripts they are matched to and on what terms.

1.1

Setting your fields and methods

4 min

Matching uses your fields and methods, so specificity pays. "Ecology" matches too widely; "coral language education, field surveys, mixed-effects models" matches the manuscripts you can judge with authority.

Too broadWell specified
EcologyTechnical explainer ecology; benthic ecology
StatisticsMixed-effects models; time series
ClimateMarine heatwaves; ocean warming impacts

List methods you would be comfortable assessing in someone else’s paper, including those you know well without using.

1.2

Setting your fee

5 min

Your fee is shown to authors before they pay. It is fixed the moment you accept an invitation and stays the same whatever the length or your conclusions.

ConsiderationGuidance
Typical rangeMost reviewers set between 5 min00 and $600
LengthPrice for a typical manuscript in your field; long papers can be declined
ChangesApply to new invitations only

See the reviewer payment terms for when payment is released.

1.3

Capacity and availability

3 min

Set a monthly limit you can keep alongside your other work. Invitations stop automatically when you reach it.

  • Start low, one or two reviews a month, and raise it once you know the rhythm
  • Pause at any time; your record stays as it is
  • Your on-time rate is public, so a limit you keep is worth more than a high one you miss

2.Accepting an invitation

An invitation shows only the abstract, field and fee. The decision to accept should rest on fit and availability alone.

2.1

Assessing fit before you accept

4 min

An invitation shows the abstract, field, language, length and fee. Accept only if all three hold.

QuestionAccept if
Can I assess it with authority?The central method and claim are within your fields
Can I meet the deadline?You can deliver within 7 days of accepting
Am I independent?Independent under the policy

Declining is private and your record stays as it is.

2.2

Declaring a conflict of interest

3 min

Declare before you read the manuscript. Some conflicts are excluded automatically; others you must declare yourself.

Excluded automaticallyYou must declare
Same institutionCollaboration in the last five years not on ORCID
ORCID co-authorsPersonal relationships with the authors
Same email domainCompeting work on the same question

See the conflict of interest policy.

3.Writing the report

A report is a structured document addressed to the author. Its value lies in specificity: every finding is located, explained and actionable.

3.1

The structure of a review report

7 min

Every report follows the five-part structure in Figure 1. Sections I and II are prose; III to V are individual findings.

  • Summary: two or three sentences restating the question, design and main claim
  • Overall assessment: whether the conclusions follow, and what most limits the paper; the decision stays with the author
  • Findings: each quotes the passage, states the problem and suggests what would address it
3.2

Grading findings by severity

5 min

Grade by consequence. Use Table 1 as the reference.

Mis-gradedMAJOR: "Figure 4 axis units missing."
CorrectMINOR: Figure 4 axis units missing. Unlikely to decide the outcome; easy to fix.

As a rough guide, reports average two to four major findings. A report with none should say explicitly that the paper looks ready.

3.3

Tone and specificity

4 min

The author is paying for directness. Be specific, neutral and respectful.

Unhelpful"The methods are weak and the conclusions are overstated."
Useful"§3.2 sets the bleaching threshold at +1°C without the DHW context the cited source relies on. Reporting DHW per site would support the claim in §5."
ISummary of the submissionTwo or three sentences restating the research question, design and principal claim, so the author can confirm you read it as intended.
IIOverall assessmentWhether the conclusions follow from the evidence, and what most limits the manuscript. The decision stays with the author.
IIIMajor findingsIssues likely to lead a referee to reject or require substantial revision. Each quotes the passage, states the problem and suggests what would address it.
IVMinor findingsIssues worth correcting that are smaller on their own.
VNotesSuggestions, missing citations and points of clarity.
Figure 1. Structure of a CitePep review report. Sections III–V are delivered as individually graded findings.
Table 1. Severity grades and their definitions.
GradeDefinitionExample
MajorLikely to lead a referee to reject, or to require substantial revision.Threshold stated without the degree-heating-week context the cited source relies on.
MinorShould be corrected; unlikely to determine the outcome alone.Axis units and baseline period missing from Figure 4.
NoteA suggestion or point of clarity.Consider citing Hughes et al. (2018) alongside the regional comparison.

4.After delivery

Delivery concludes the review. What follows is limited, and what becomes public is deliberately narrow.

4.1

Responding to clarifying questions

3 min

After delivery the author may ask one round of clarifying questions. Answer within three working days.

  • Clarify what you meant; revisions go through a re-check
  • If a question reveals you were wrong, say so plainly
  • Keep answers on the platform, where both sides stay anonymous
4.2

Payment

3 min

Payment is released when you deliver the report, less CitePep’s service fee. Payouts are made monthly in your chosen currency.

StageStatus
Author paysHeld
You acceptFee fixed
You deliverReleased to your balance
Month endPaid out
4.3

Your public record

3 min

Only two numbers are public: how many reviews you have completed and how many were delivered on time. The manuscript, the author, your findings and your verdict stay private.

PrivateTitles, authors, findings, verdicts, fees paid
Public12 reviews completed · 100% on time

Revision history

1.212 Sep 2026Added Table 1; clarified the clarifying-questions round.
1.13 Jun 2026Conflict of interest extended to shared email domains.
1.014 Feb 2026First edition.

Related: Editorial standards · Author guides · Apply to join the reviewer pool