Not all reviews are equal. Some reviews are so good, they help the author(s) to advance their work and the editor to make an informed and timely publishing decision. These kinds of reviews help deliver breakthrough, verified research to the world faster.
Editors are able to rate reviews if they are adding a record of the manuscript they handled or through the peer-review submission systems of integrated journals. If you would like to ensure your editors have access to the review scoring rating and feedback system, get in touch.
The quality of reviews are rated on a four-point scale, across four dimensions, as shown in the form below:
The review assignment was completed within the time limits established by the editor.
The review was easily read and interpreted by the editor and authors.
Comments were constructive, relevant, and realistic.
The review gave adequate consideration to all aspects of the paper including methodology, figures, interpretation and presentation of results, ethics, relevance, etc.
A review is deemed 'Excellent' if it receives a score of 9 or more out of a possible 12.
Poor = 0 point Below Average = 1 points Average = 2 points Exceptional = 3 points
Excellent reviews receive a gold star on the reviewer's profile and are an indicator of where reviewers have gone above and beyond.
The only information made public is where a review is deemed "Excellent".
NOTE: Scored reviews which do not meet the requirements for excellence will not be indicated on your profile or any other public part of the site.
Exact scores are completely confidential. Written feedback is privileged between the editor and reviewer.
For more information about the "Excellent Reviews" feature, see our blog post.