Our philosophy on peer review


This guide is written to help you peer review a manuscript submitted to one of the Dove Medical Press journals. It is written by our Medical Director.

Reading this should answer most of the queries you have and guide you in completing a peer review in the most thorough and prompt way to help ensure the paper is properly reviewed and published quickly. If you have any further queries please email me directly at our Editorial Offices.

Authors have historically complained of the time it takes to get a paper published. Dove tries hard to get papers through as thoroughly, fairly and rapidly as possible. As a result reviewers are asked to submit their comments within two weeks.

Dove uses anonymous peer reviewers as it feels this is the best way to get honest opinions on papers. Dove requires that peer reviewers not contact authors directly. 

You should consider the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers before accepting to review a paper and throughout the review process. 

Reviewers should remember that the Editor-in-Chief of each journal is using your comments as a guide.

Some reviewers comments are:

  • The reviewer has suggested plagiarism, research fraud, or redundant (duplicate) publication. This is very rare and it is likely that the Editor or Publisher will get in touch with the author to discuss this event. If you wish to know more about this area, please do have a look at the COPE website (http://publicationethics.org/)

  • The English is too poor. Dove journals are English language journals and papers must be readable in English. Many authors’ first language is not English and understandably there may be errors in the paper. Dove encourages authors to get a native English speaker to check the paper before they submit it.

  • The paper has no ‘narrative’. An academic paper is no different from other types of written information. It has to make logical sense. The paper has to ‘flow’ and show why the study/review was done, how it was done, what results were found, what conclusions were drawn for these results. This is how the paper’s audience will understand what the author has done and how their paper will be remembered by them. If it is difficult to understand why and how the author did the study, the reader is unlikely to pay much attention to the paper.

Updated 18 August 2015