International Association of Decision Sciences (IADS)

Reviewer Resources

Peer Review Process

Visit peer review at Hindawi for an outline of our peer review process.

How to Peer Review for Hindawi

The reviewer report should comprehensively critique the submission, consisting of more than a few brief sentences. Hindawi does not require a specific structure for reports, however, a suggested format is:

We encourage reviewers to help authors improve their manuscript. The report should give constructive analysis to authors, particularly where revisions are recommended. Where reviewers do not wish authors to see certain comments, these can be added to the confidential comments to the Academic Editor.

While expectations vary by discipline, some core aspects that should be critiqued by reviewers may include:

To help authors receive timely reviews, reviewer reports should be submitted via the Manuscript Tracking System on or before the agreed deadline. Reviewers should contact Hindawi if they are unable to meet the deadline so an alternative date can be arranged.

We encourage reviewers to focus their reports on objectively critiquing the scientific aspects of the submission, including soundness of the methodology and whether the conclusions can be supported by the results. Comments may also be given on novelty and the potential impact of the work. Reviewers provide a recommendation to accept, revise, or reject; however, the decision will be made by the Academic Editor.

Reporting Guidelines

Hindawi does not mandate the use of reporting guidelines by authors, however, we encourage reviewers to use relevant reporting guidelines to help assess the submission. The EQUATOR Network and FAIRsharing list clinical and general science guidelines, respectively. We particularly encourage the use of:

Publication Ethics

Visit our publication ethics page for information regarding Hindawi’s Editorial Policies.

Hindawi is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Read the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers for information on best practice in peer review.

Reviewers should raise any concerns about publication ethics to the Research Integrity team.


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 Hindawi or the Academic Editor handling the manuscript and note the name of the colleague(s) in the ‘Comments to the editor’ section of their report.

Reviewers will be anonymous to the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline to review a submission when they:

Reviewers must declare any remaining interests in the ‘Confidential’ section of the review form, which will be considered by the editor.

Reviewers must declare if they have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors.

Reviewers are encouraged to comment on authors’ declared conflicts of interest. If there are concerns that authors have not fully disclosed financial, institutional, commercial, personal, ideological, or academic interests, this should be raised in the reviewer report.

For more information, see our publication ethics policy.

Applications to Review for Hindawi

We appreciate applications to join our community of peer reviewers. Our Academic Editors select reviewers on a manuscript-by-manuscript basis. In each case, the most relevant scientists will be invited. To provide up-to-date contact details, interested reviewers should register a Manuscript Tracking System account.

Reviewer Acknowledgment

We would like to thank the 608 reviewers who have taken part in the peer review process for Advances in Decision Sciences.

Exit mobile version