For reviewers
Reviewer Guidelines
What a review for Journal of Water is asked to establish, and the terms on which a manuscript is shared with you.
Before you accept
Competence, conflicts and capacity
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. A review is asked for on those terms.
Accept a manuscript you are competent to judge. If part of it lies outside your expertise — the modeling, the analytical chemistry, the statistics — say so when you accept, so the editor can cover that part with a second opinion.
Decline where a shared institution, a recent collaboration, a supervisory relationship or a competing interest would make an independent judgment difficult, and say why.
A submitted manuscript is confidential. Do not share it, cite it, or use its unpublished content. Do not involve a colleague or student in the review without the editor’s agreement, and name them if you do.
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
What the review establishes
The question and its place
Whether the question is clearly stated, whether the work is positioned against what is already known, and whether it falls within the journal’s remit.
Methods and data
Whether the sites, sampling, instruments, analytical methods, model set-up and inputs are reported in enough detail to be assessed and repeated, and whether they suit the question.
Analysis and uncertainty
Whether the analysis is appropriate, whether uncertainty and limitations are handled honestly, and whether calibration and validation are adequate where a model is used.
Interpretation
Whether the conclusions follow from the evidence presented, and whether claims stay within the conditions, sites and period the study actually covers.
Reporting and integrity
Whether data availability, ethics, consent, trial registration, funding and competing interests are declared as the policies require, and whether any overlap with published work is disclosed.
Clarity
Whether the text, figures and tables communicate the work to a reader from a neighboring part of water science.
Writing the report
A report an author can act on
Separate what must be addressed from what would improve the paper, and give the reason for each point with a reference to the place in the manuscript. Specific, evidenced comments make a revision possible; a general impression does not.
A recommendation is advice to the editor. The decision is the editor’s: Manuscripts are assessed for scope, scholarly quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and research integrity.
Confidential comments to the editor are for matters you should not put to the authors directly, such as a suspected integrity problem.
After the review
Manuscript files
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
Use of AI
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Read further
Reviewing for the journal
Researchers willing to review in the water sciences can write to the editorial office at [email protected] with their field of expertise.