Guide for Reviewers

Review for JEASD

  1. JEASD does not require a specific structure for review reports, however, a suggested format is:
  • Summary
  • Major issues
  • Minor issues
  1. In case a reviewer believes that will not be eligible to review the submission, it is highly recommended and appreciable to apologize for accepting the invitation.
  2. The reviewer report should comprehensively critique the submission and consist of much more than a few brief sentences.
  3. We encourage reviewers to help authors improve their manuscript. The report should give constructive analysis to authors, particularly where revisions are recommended.
  4. Where reviewers do not wish authors to see certain comments, these can be added to the confidential comments to the editor.  
  5. Please, check the English language. If the article requires substantial English editing, let us know, but it should not be totally rejected on the basis of poor language context alone.
  6. If you reject the paper, please give a few reasons why you have rejected it, its major shortcomings, and perhaps a few suggestions with reference to published work on the topic.
  7. The report for the review of the submission can be downloaded from the review form.


Manuscripts under peer review should be strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss their content with anyone outside the peer review process. 

Reviewers may, on request, consult with colleagues from their research group trusting that the confidentiality of the manuscript is maintained. Reviewers should first contact JEASD or the Editor in Chief and note the name of the colleague(s) in the ‘Comments to the editor section of their report.

Conflicts of interest 

Reviewers should decline to review a submission when they: 

  • Have a financial interest in the subject of the work.

  • Have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors.

  • Feel unable to be objective.