Appropriate expertise
Reviewers should have relevant subject knowledge.
PEER REVIEW
Independent scholarly assessment for books and chapters
AvenSci applies peer review appropriate to the publication type, with qualified reviewers, conflict controls and documented editorial decisions.
EDITORIAL PRINCIPLEPeer review informs decisions; it does not replace editorial responsibility.
Reviewers provide independent expert assessment. AvenSci retains responsibility for acceptance, revision requirements and rejection.
REVIEW PRINCIPLES
Six safeguards for a credible review process
Independence
Conflicts that could affect impartiality must be disclosed.
Confidentiality
Unpublished manuscripts and review materials remain confidential.
Constructive evaluation
Reports should address scholarly quality, clarity, evidence and relevance.
Responsible citations
Irrelevant citation requests and citation manipulation are unacceptable.
Editorial decision
Recommendations are advisory and considered with the full record.
APPLICATION
Review can operate at book level, chapter level, or both
The route depends on publication type, project stage and editorial need.
Proposal or manuscript review
Scientific rationale, scope, structure, audience and contribution.
Individual contribution review
A chapter can be assessed independently inside an edited volume.
Revision or specialist review
Further review may be requested after substantial revision.
REVIEW WORKFLOW
A structured path from assignment to decision
01Editorial screening
02Reviewer selection
03Conflict check
04Independent report
05Author revision
06Editorial decision
REVIEW INTEGRITY
Conflicts, coercion and manipulation are not compatible with independent review
Reviewer identity concerns, confidentiality breaches, inappropriate citation requests, plagiarism and other manipulation must be escalated.
Conflicts of interestPersonal, financial or professional relationships may require reassignment.
Citation manipulationUnnecessary citations to reviewers, editors or publications are not acceptable.
Confidential materialUnpublished content must not be shared or used for personal advantage.
AI and external toolsConfidential manuscripts must not be uploaded to tools that compromise data control.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PEER REVIEWERS
Before accepting a review invitation
Accept a review only when you have the appropriate expertise, sufficient time and no conflict that could reasonably compromise independent assessment.
Check your expertise
Confirm that the book, proposal or chapter falls sufficiently within your field of knowledge. If only part of the work is within your expertise, tell the editorial office.
Declare conflicts of interest
Disclose recent collaborations, institutional links, close personal or professional relationships, financial interests or any circumstance that could affect impartiality.
Confirm availability
Accept only if you can provide a careful report within the requested deadline. Decline promptly when this is not possible.
Protect confidentiality
Do not share the manuscript, figures, tables, data, correspondence or review invitation with unauthorized third parties.
DURING THE REVIEW
Assess the scholarship, not the author
Scientific contribution
Is the work relevant, original or useful to its intended scholarly audience?
Accuracy and evidence
Are claims adequately supported, and are important limitations or errors identified?
Structure and clarity
Is the argument coherent, logically organized and understandable for the intended readership?
Literature and citations
Are important sources represented fairly? Suggest citations only when they are genuinely necessary for scholarly reasons.
Figures and tables
Are they necessary, interpretable, accurately labelled and consistent with the text?
Ethics and integrity
Flag suspected plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated material, authorship concerns or other integrity issues confidentially to AvenSci.
WRITING THE REVIEW REPORT
A useful report is specific, constructive and prioritized
Brief overall assessment
Summarize the main contribution, strengths and overall suitability in a few sentences.
Major issues
Identify substantive scientific, conceptual, methodological or structural problems that affect the work.
Minor issues
List specific corrections, clarifications, factual errors or presentation issues that do not alter the central conclusions.
Confidential comments to the editor
Use the confidential channel for conflicts, integrity concerns or information that should not be communicated directly to the author.
Reviewers should
- Be objective, respectful and evidence based.
- Explain why a change is needed rather than simply demanding it.
- Distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions.
- Report limitations in their own expertise.
- Notify AvenSci immediately if an integrity concern is discovered.
- Submit the review through the designated AvenSci reviewer workspace.
Reviewers must not
- Contact authors directly about the review.
- Share the manuscript or involve another reviewer without permission.
- Use unpublished information for personal, professional or commercial advantage.
- Request citations to inflate personal, institutional or publication metrics.
- Use insulting, discriminatory or personally directed language.
- Make the acceptance decision themselves; recommendations remain advisory.
RECOMMENDATION
Access Reviewer Workspace
Give a clear recommendation, supported by your report
Where the reviewer form requests a recommendation, select the option that best reflects the scholarly assessment. AvenSci may use categories such as accept, minor revision, major revision or reject. The final editorial decision remains with AvenSci.
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT?
Four roles, clearly separated
Respond to the assessment
Revise carefully and provide reasoned responses.
Provide expert advice
Assess fairly, disclose conflicts and protect confidentiality.
Support the process
Coordinate chapters while respecting reviewer independence.
Retain final responsibility
Oversee integrity, evaluate reports and make the final decision.
Purpose of peer review
Peer review supports editorial decision-making by providing independent expert assessment of scientific quality, relevance, coherence and, where appropriate, methodological soundness.
Review model
The review process may differ according to publication type. A book proposal, complete manuscript, selected sample chapters or individual chapters may be reviewed. The applicable model is determined by AvenSci based on the project and is communicated to the relevant participants.
Reviewer selection
Reviewers should have appropriate subject expertise and sufficient independence from the authors, editors and project. AvenSci or the responsible academic editor may reject suggested reviewers where conflicts or other concerns exist.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts, proposals, reports and editorial correspondence that are not public must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not use unpublished material for personal advantage.
Conflicts of interest
Reviewers and editors should disclose financial, professional, personal or academic relationships that could reasonably affect impartiality. A disclosed relationship may lead to reassignment.
Reviewer conduct
Reports should be constructive, specific and focused on the scholarly work. Requests for irrelevant citations, coercive citation practices, discriminatory comments or use of confidential material are not acceptable.
Decisions and revisions
Peer-review reports inform but do not mechanically determine the publishing decision. AvenSci or the responsible editor may request revision, additional review or clarification before a final decision.
Use of automated tools
Confidential manuscripts or review materials should not be uploaded to external generative-AI or automated services where doing so would compromise confidentiality, rights or data protection. Any permitted use must comply with AvenSci instructions and applicable policies.
DECISION PRINCIPLE
Reviewer recommendations are advisory
Acceptance or rejection is not determined by a numerical vote. AvenSci considers reviewer expertise, report quality, author responses and the publication as a whole.
PUBLISHING WORKFLOW
Submit a ProposalAssessment → review → revision → decision → production
Peer review is one part of a broader editorial process.