Reviewer Guidelines

General information for reviewers

Our valuable reviewers and editorial team ensure that our journals publish high-quality manuscripts in a timely manner. Through reviewer contributions our journals publish the best, cutting-edge studies, thereby advancing dermatology research and improving patient outcomes.

We hope that the guidance below will aid reviewers and encourage you to review our journals.

The journals of the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) are a member of and follow the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

We encourage all reviewers, especially if you are new, to read COPE: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.

Peer review process

BAD journals use single anonymous peer review, i.e. the reviewers can view the authors’ names, but the authors do not know who the reviewers are.

Manuscripts are first assigned to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) who performs an initial triage, and if the manuscript passes the first threshold, it is then assigned to one of our specialist Associate Editors to arrange peer review. The manuscript is then normally assigned to at least two specialist peer reviewers. The editorial team assesses the reviewers’ comments and makes a recommendation to the EiC who then makes the final decision regarding publication.

Reviewer timeframe

We understand that you are very busy, so please decline an invitation to carry out a review if you are unable to complete it in a timely manner. This ensures that we can invite the next set of people and the manuscript is not delayed waiting for a response.

If you are delayed in submitting your review, please email the Editorial Office who may be able to extend your deadline. Ultimately, keeping to these timelines helps the publishing ecosystem work on time.

Process

Reviewers have 1 week to respond to an invitation to review a manuscript.

Once you have accepted the invitation to review you will receive an email with information on how to access the manuscript, including a direct link (no sign-in is required), and you will have 2 weeks to submit your review.

Please save a draft when working on your review and then submit it when you have completed the review. The system does not submit your review until you press the ‘submit’ button.

If you accept the first round of review, your name will automatically be suggested for the re-review. If the revisions were minor, the Associate Editor may opt to review it themselves and not send it out for re-review.

If you have reviewed a manuscript, you will receive an email to inform you of the decision once the EiC sends the final decision letter to the authors. The EiC will make one of the following decisions post-peer review decisions:

The flow chart below outlines the full peer review process

Should you accept the invitation to review?

Here is a quick checklist to use when deciding whether to peer review for one of our journals:

• Can you submit comments within 2 weeks?

• Check the author list as soon as you receive the invite, to ensure there are no potential conflicts of interest.

• Do you have expertise in the topic and are you aware of the areas in which your expertise is lacking?

Conflicts of interest
 

Reviewers are asked to disclose any conflicts of interest when accepting a review assignment.

We follow the ICMJE guidance on conflicts of interest and while we do not use their form, it is a good guide to use. It is better to declare a conflict even if it is a perceived one.

When to decline a review
 

To provide authors with a fair and unbiased review process, reviewers are required to excuse themselves from the review of a manuscript when faced with a potential conflict of interest. Examples of situations that would require recusal on behalf of an editor or reviewer include but are not limited to:

• an editor or reviewer is the spouse, domestic partner, parent, child, sibling or other family member of an author on the manuscript in review;

• an editor or reviewer is involved in research collaboration with an author on the manuscript in review;

• an editor or reviewer is under the employment of, or otherwise works at, the same institution as an author on the manuscript in review;

• an editor or reviewer has a strong intellectual bias either for or against the position taken by the authors;

• an editor or reviewer has a financial interest in an agent or device relevant to the study or has a financial relationship with a commercial sponsor of the study in question;

• editors and reviewers are also required to excuse themselves from the review of a manuscript when requested to do so by the EiC.

It is our journals’ policy that if any of our editors are an author on a manuscript, they are unable to view the peer review process and are not involved in any decision-making.

If you have any questions about conflicts of interest, please contact the editorial office at [email protected].

Review confidentiality
 

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents that belong to the authors; therefore, all information during a review is strictly confidential. By agreeing to review, the reviewer agrees not to disclose any information related to the manuscript under review.

Should a reviewer wish to be assisted in their review by an appropriately qualified colleague, and we encourage co-reviewing with a trainee, please email the editorial office before any reviewing begins. Please mention this in your ‘Confidential Comments to the Editor’ and ensure to provide an appropriate acknowledgement if you had assistance.

Reviewer responsibilities

Reviewers should:

• Be aware of the journals’ scope, audience and policies

• Be knowledgeable about and qualified in the subject matter to be reviewed. However, if you are a trainee or a new reviewer, do not be daunted, and review as you would if you were a reader of the topic. We welcome and encourage trainee dermatologists to become reviewers.

• Be able to provide constructive, relevant and unbiased feedback that will help authors improve their manuscript.

• Be able to return a review in a timely manner. If exceptional circumstances prevent a reviewer from returning a review within the requested timeframe, contact the editorial office as soon as possible.

• Exercise tact and courtesy when making critiques.

• Provide a structured list, where possible, by citing specific pages, paragraphs or lines in comments so that the items in question can be easily found.

• Be mindful of inclusive use of language, especially pertaining to race and ethnicity. If you are unsure or if you feel it could do with another expert in this matter, please alert the Editor in the confidential comments.

• Be mindful of your biases, conscious or unconscious, when reviewing a manuscript.

• Review a manuscript for its scientific content rather than its language. However, if you feel that the language makes it difficult to understand the manuscript, please alert the Editor or make a helpful suggestion that the authors could get some language assistance to improve their manuscript.

Reviewers should not:

• Agree to review a manuscript if there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest (all potential conflicts should be disclosed to the Editorial Office before agreeing to review a manuscript or as soon as the potential conflict has been discovered). Conflicts that may hinder a fair and unbiased review include, but are not necessarily limited to, those of a financial, institutional, philosophical or personal nature.

• Disclose any identifiable information about themselves in their review (the peer review process is anonymous).

• Allude to either rejection or acceptance in their comments to the authors.

• Attempt to contact authors to discuss a manuscript.

• Reveal, cite or otherwise disclose information about a manuscript prior to publication.

• Take on the task of copy editing (i.e. comment on minor errors regarding grammar, spelling or style) as our journals have technical editors who work with authors to improve the language if necessary.

• Ask for new information during re-review – re-review is only meant to ensure that the initial comments have been addressed. If it is important, then it is best to explain and provide context and clarity to the authors. 

• Engage the review assistance of another appropriately qualified colleague without first obtaining approval from the Associate Editor.

• Use large language models such as ChatGPT for peer review; we value your judgement. Moreover, the use of any publicly available tools may compromise the confidentiality of the manuscript.

How to review

For the first-time reviewer, start by reading the manuscript and have a blank sheet of paper or electronic document to make notes as you go along.

Number your list as you read so you can refer to those sections.

Start with the main content and read it as you would read a manuscript.

Questions reviewers should ask themselves when reviewing:

Introduction

• Is the study’s objective clearly stated?

• Are there any seminal papers missing in the introduction?

• Have the authors provided enough context for the background?

• If information presented in the manuscript is new, is it properly introduced and described?

Methods

• Does it appear that the most appropriate materials and methods were used?

• Do the methods appear to be scientifically sound?

• Is there sufficient information in the methods to ensure that the study can be replicated? 

• Are the statistical tests appropriate to the study and well described?

• Are the authors signposting to another previous study where the methods were described in detail? If so, would that be sufficient for this study?

Ethics

• Is there any question of violation of the journal’s principles for research involving animals and/or humans?

• Have the appropriate research ethics been declared for the type of study?

Results

• Does the study lend itself to producing replicable results?

• Does the manuscript include figures and/or tables? If so, do the figures/tables add to the manuscript or is the information illustrated redundant?

• Are the figures, tables and legends clear and readable? Do the legends correlate to the appropriate figures/tables?

• Is the author inserting any method information that should be moved to the results section?

Conclusion

• Do the conclusions support the data?

• Results should not be repeated in the conclusion. 

• Is there a clear conclusion that can be drawn at the end of the manuscript or has the hypothesis been proved?

For certain types of original research, we request authors submit the following checklist, which may be helpful during your review:

Once you have read the manuscript in detail, it is then best to review the abstract and check if what the authors state or claim in the manuscript matches the abstract.

At this stage, it might be appropriate to review some of these overall questions:

• Is the manuscript topic appropriate for the journal?

• Is the manuscript novel? Will it make a significant impact?

• Does the manuscript’s title appropriately reflect the study?

• Are there any perceived conflicts of interest or other potential ethical issues regarding the study that haven’t already been disclosed?

• Does the manuscript include relevant and sufficient references?

• Does the manuscript use standard measurements and terminology?

• Are there any concerns that make the reviewers question the suitability of the manuscript for publication (plagiarism, duplicate publication, ghost writing, etc.)?

• Finally, are there any other concerns not listed above that call into question the manuscript’s suitability for publication (plagiarism, duplicate publication, ghost writing, etc.)?

Depending on whether you are an experienced reviewer or a first-time reviewer, you may wish to use the above guidance upfront or later. It may take a bit longer the first time, but, over time, it will be second nature and peer review will be much faster.

Equity, diversity and inclusion

We encourage reflection by reviewers regarding whether sufficient consideration has been paid to equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in our research and evaluation efforts. Where appropriate, please comment on EDI using the guidance provided by the following questions:

• Does (and how does) the manuscript engage with human difference and/or power structures (i.e. are notions of EDI incorporated appropriately for the issues addressed)?

• Does the study address matters of relevance to EDI in a nuanced way?

• What assumptions drive the ways EDI has been included (or excluded) and how do they impact the overall study/manuscript?

• Are there other ways you would have liked to see the authors engage more with EDI?

Reviewer form

Below is our current reviewer form, to show you the questions in it:

Reviewer recommendations

Once you have completed your review, it is time for you to make a recommendation to the Editor regarding the manuscript's suitability for publication (please note that these recommendations are different to the overall decisions made by the EiC):

• Accept – for manuscripts that are scientifically and editorially sound and acceptable as submitted. 

• Major Revision – for manuscripts that have moderate-to-substantial flaws that could potentially be addressed through major revisions. For example, you may have asked for some new tables to be added or asked for re-analyses of certain data points, or the authors may need to revisit their objective, which may affect the conclusion and results.

• Minor Revision – for manuscripts that have minor flaws that could potentially be addressed through minor revisions. For example, this could be a suggestion to revise a table slightly or re-write the conclusion. 

• Reject – for manuscripts that are unsuitable for publication in the CED.

Confidential comments for the editors

In the field labelled ‘Confidential Comments to the Editor’, please state your reasoning for the recommendations provided. Comments should be clear, helpful and relevant, and summarize the reviewer’s opinion on the manuscript’s strengths and/or weaknesses. Comments for the editors are not shared with the authors, so be sure that any critiques that should be addressed in a revision are made directly to the authors.

Any concerns related to authorship, possible conflicts of interest, figure authenticity or any other matter that could potentially constitute a breach of ethics and/or call into question the integrity of the manuscript, should be mentioned here.

Comments for the authors

Comments entered in the field labelled ‘Comments for the Authors’ will be included in the decision letter and thus are made available to the authors. The reviewer should provide the author with concise and constructive feedback on the manuscript’s strengths and/or weaknesses.

If more information is needed to strengthen or validate claims or conclusions, the reviewer should explain, in specific detail, what additional information should be provided to guide the authors toward an acceptable revision.

If relevant, provide a numbered list to aid the authors. It is especially helpful to include page numbers, paragraphs, line numbering, figure labels, etc., when critiquing specific items in a bulleted or numbered list.

The most helpful reviews explain what is outstanding, what the fatal flaw is or whatever specific changes could be made to move the manuscripts toward a positive decision.

While reviewers are encouraged to plainly state their opinions and critiques, reviewers should refrain from harsh, unnecessary criticism and otherwise inappropriate language. Reviewers should also avoid alluding to either acceptance or rejection in their comments to the author. The journal may edit comments that are deemed inappropriate, libellous in nature, reveal the identity of the reviewer or those that may otherwise hinder a constructive review.

Manuscript review score card

In addition to review comments and an overall recommendation, reviewers are asked to complete a manuscript score card. The score card provides a place for reviewers to rate the manuscript with grades from substandard to outstanding based on the following criteria: significance of research, originality of work, accuracy of experimental design, statistical data, relevance of discussion, soundness of conclusions/interpretations and clarity of writing. These ratings are not made available to authors as this information is used for review and editorial decision-making purposes alone.

Reviewer recognition

We are extremely grateful to our reviewers and for the work they do in terms of peer review and provide the following recognition.

• You can claim 1 CPD point through your Royal College of Physicians CPD diary for peer review if you are based in the UK, but you may be eligible for CPD points through your own local institution.

• You can request the journal office to provide you with a certificate for reviews done. We can provide this annually so you can use it as part of your appraisal.

• We publish the list of all our reviewers annually in the April issue of the Journal as public recognition of your work.

• You can claim your credit by signing up to Web of Science or using your ORCiD account for all reviews you have done within the ScholarOne system, which will provide you with a list of all reviews across different journals.

Contact information

Please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office at [email protected] if you need any assistance with the review process or have any concerns/feedback.

Resources

Training of reviewers

The BAD organizes an online workshop on ‘How to peer review’, which is a hands-on practical course and some of our journal editors work with the students to review a manuscript in real time.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

COPE: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers

How to Write a Report | Nature

Structured peer review | Elsevier

Step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript |Wiley

Inclusive Language Guidelines (apa.org)

Understanding Unconscious Bias | Royal Society