Reviewer Guidelines

 

Vertex Geoscience operates a single-blind peer review by default (reviewers blinded) with optional transparency after decision (reviewers may opt to disclose identities; with consent, reports may be published). We aim for fair, rigorous, and timely evaluations.

Ÿ   Turnaround: initial decision targeted in ~2-3 weeks

Ÿ   Confidentiality: manuscripts and reviews are confidential

Ÿ   Conflicts: declare any potential COI before accepting

Ÿ   Co-review: permitted only with prior editor approval and full disclosure

 

Policies & Process

Model. Default single-blind peer review. Selected article types (e.g., Interviews, Editorials) are handled editorially; some may be single-blind or not externally refereed.

Before you accept. Confirm:

Ÿ   Expertise fit (you can assess core claims/methods)

Ÿ   Availability (can return a report within 2–3 weeks)

Ÿ   Conflicts of interest (examples below)

Ÿ   Independence (no recent collaborations/shared grants)

Confidentiality & co-review.

Ÿ   Do not share the manuscript.

Ÿ   Mentored co-review is allowed only with prior editor approval; disclose the co-reviewer’s name and role in confidential notes to the editor.

Ÿ   Do not upload confidential content to external services (including public AI tools, grammar checkers, or cloud viewers) without permission.

Anonymity & editing of reports.

Ÿ   Your identity is not shared with authors unless you choose to sign your report after decision.

Ÿ   Editors may edit reports to remove identifying or inappropriate content while preserving scientific substance.

Conflicts of interest (examples). Recent co-authorship or collaboration; shared funding; same department or close institutional ties; advisor/advisee relationships; direct competition; financial interests. When in doubt—disclose.

Timing & extensions. Standard review window: 2–3 weeks. If you need more time, notify the editors early; short extensions are usually possible.

Access to literature. If you cannot access a key reference or dataset, contact the editors for assistance rather than proceeding without verification.

Escalation. Use the “Confidential notes to editor” to flag ethics concerns (plagiarism, image/data manipulation, undisclosed reuse), serious methodology/statistics issues, or suspected breaches of anonymity.

 

How to Write a Review

Provide a clear, evidence-based assessment that helps editors decide and helps authors improve the work.

Recommended Structure

Ÿ   Summary (2–5 sentences) — What the paper claims and why it matters.

Ÿ   Major comments — Validity, novelty, sufficiency of evidence, key methods/statistics, data availability/reproducibility, interpretation.

Ÿ   Minor comments — Clarity, figures/tables, references, small methodological clarifications, English/structure.

Ÿ   Confidential notes to editor — COI disclosures, ethics flags, frank recommendation with rationale.

Core Evaluation Dimensions

Ÿ   Originality & significance — Substantive advance beyond prior art; not merely incremental.

Ÿ   Methodological rigor — Appropriate design/controls/derivations; stats where relevant; assumptions clear.

Ÿ   Data integrity & reproducibility — Results consistent; analyses transparent; Data Availability Statement sufficient; code/data accessible as policy requires or restrictions justified.

Ÿ   Interpretation & discussion — Conclusions supported; limitations acknowledged; literature context accurate and balanced.

Ÿ   Presentation quality — Logical structure; figures readable and compliant; references complete and fair; English clear.

Ÿ   Fit to scope — Relevance to Vertex Geoscience readership.

Tone & conduct

Ÿ   Be specific, constructive, and professional.

Ÿ   Cite line/figure numbers; propose concrete remedies.

Ÿ   Avoid personal remarks or citation-padding (including to your own work unless essential).

What not to do

Ÿ   Do not attempt to identify authors; do not contact authors directly.

Ÿ   Do not request citation of irrelevant work.

Ÿ   Do not rely on AI to generate your review.

 

How to Submit Your Report

Login & dashboard. Use the secure link from your invitation; pending tasks are listed on your dashboard.

Download & tools. Download manuscript/SI; optional in-platform PDF annotation if available.

Report form fields

Ÿ   Structured report (paste or upload)

Ÿ   Confidential notes to editor

Ÿ   Ratings (novelty, rigor, clarity, ethics, overall)

Ÿ   Decision recommendation (Accept / Minor Rev / Major Rev / Reject)

Ÿ   Optional annotated files

Revising a submitted report. Use “Revise/Replace” in the portal or email the editor (include manuscript ID).

Messaging the editors. Use the portal messaging or email [email protected] for deadline changes, policy clarifications, or ethics flags.

Browser & file tips. Use a modern browser; upload vector graphics/PDF for annotated figures; remove metadata that might reveal identity.

 

Special Cases & Escalation

Ÿ   Cross-disciplinary submissions. Recommend an additional methods/statistics reviewer where appropriate.

Ÿ   Conflicting reviews. Provide explicit, evidence-based reasoning; editors may commission a tie-breaker review.

Ÿ   Methods/statistics uncertainty. Request analyses or controls; explain why they’re required for validity.

Ÿ   Data/image concerns. Describe issues in confidential notes; do not investigate externally.

Ÿ   Replication/negative results. Potentially publishable if the methodology is strong and the result is consequential.

Ÿ   Incremental advances. Recommend Reject unless the increment delivers broad utility (e.g., scalability, generality, precision).

 

Ethics & Conflicts

Ÿ   Confidentiality. Treat all materials as confidential, no unauthorized sharing.

Ÿ   Conflicts of interest. Disclose recent collaborations, shared grants, same institution/department, advisor/advisee ties, direct competition, or financial interests.

Ÿ   Co-review. Allowed only with prior editor approval; disclose co-reviewer’s name and contribution to editors.

Ÿ   AI tools. AI-generated reviews are not allowed. Limited grammar/style assistance is permissible only if you verify accuracy and disclose use (do not upload confidential content to public tools).

Ÿ   Misconduct flags. Use confidential notes to alert editors about plagiarism, text/image/data manipulation, or undisclosed reuse.

 

Recognition & Credit

Ÿ   Certificates available on request after completed reviews.

Ÿ   Annual acknowledgment (opt-in) on the journal website.

Ÿ   Reviewer credit via ORCID-linked services (where supported).

Ÿ   Invitations to future reviewing/editing opportunities for outstanding referees.

 

Questions and Contact

Ÿ   Can I decline? Yes; please respond promptly and, if possible, suggest unbiased alternates (with institutional emails).

Ÿ   Need more time? Request an extension before the deadline; short extensions are often granted.

Ÿ   Can I involve a trainee? Only with prior editor approval, and you must disclose the co-reviewer.

Ÿ   May I sign my review? You may choose to sign after decision; default remains anonymous to authors.

Ÿ   What if I suspect misconduct? Describe the concern in confidential notes; do not contact authors or investigate externally.

Ÿ   Access problem to cited literature/data? Contact the editors for assistance.

Ÿ   Can I request citations to my work? Only if directly relevant and proportionate—avoid citation padding.

Ÿ   Browser or platform issues? Use a current browser; contact [email protected] with the manuscript ID.

 

Becoming a Reviewer

Ÿ   We invite qualified researchers with relevant expertise and an active publication record.

Ÿ   Express interest: email [email protected] with your CV/ORCID and 5–10 keywords describing your expertise.