OJS Reviewer Guide: How to Complete Peer Reviews in Open Journal Systems

Being invited to review a manuscript is both an honor and a responsibility in academic publishing. If you've been asked to review for a journal using Open Journal Systems (OJS), this guide walks you through the entire process—from accepting the invitation to submitting your completed review. Whether you're a first-time reviewer or simply new to OJS, you'll find clear instructions for every step of the peer review process.

Understanding Your Role as a Reviewer

Peer reviewers are the gatekeepers of scholarly quality. Your evaluation helps editors decide whether manuscripts should be published, require revisions, or need to be declined. Good reviews:

• Assess the scholarly merit and originality of the research
• Evaluate methodology and analytical rigor
• Identify errors, gaps, or weaknesses in the argument
• Provide constructive feedback to help authors improve
• Recommend an appropriate editorial decision

Remember: Your role is advisory. Editors make the final publication decisions based on your recommendations and other factors.

Types of Peer Review

The journal will inform you which review type applies:

Double-Blind Review

You don't know who wrote the manuscript, and the authors won't know who reviewed it. This is the most common model, designed to minimize bias.

Single-Blind Review

You can see the authors' names, but they won't know your identity. This allows you to consider author expertise while maintaining your anonymity.

Open Review

Both you and the authors know each other's identities. Some journals also publish reviews alongside articles, promoting transparency and accountability.

Receiving a Review Invitation

When an editor invites you to review, you'll receive an email containing:

• The manuscript title
• The abstract (so you can assess your expertise)
• Deadlines for responding and completing the review
• A link to access the review in OJS
• Instructions from the journal

One-Click Access

Many journals enable "one-click access"—clicking the link in the email takes you directly to the review without needing to log in separately. This link is unique to you and should not be shared.

Should You Accept?

Before accepting, consider:

• Expertise: Do you have sufficient knowledge of the topic and methods?
• Time: Can you complete the review by the deadline?
• Conflicts: Do you have any conflicts of interest with the authors or research?
• Confidentiality: Are you willing to keep the manuscript confidential?

If you can't review: Decline promptly so the editor can find another reviewer. If possible, suggest qualified colleagues who might be available.

Step 1: Accepting or Declining the Invitation

When you click the review link, you'll see the Review Request page with:

• Article title and abstract
• Review type (blind, double-blind, or open)
• Response deadline and review deadline
• Journal's privacy statement

To Accept the Review

1. Review the submission details and deadlines
2. Check the box to agree to the privacy statement (you're confirming you'll keep the manuscript confidential)
3. Click "Accept Review, Continue to Step #2"

To Decline the Review

1. Click "Decline Review Request"
2. You may be asked to provide a reason (optional but helpful)
3. Consider suggesting alternative reviewers if you know suitable candidates

Important: Respond promptly! If you can't review, declining quickly helps the editor find alternatives. Letting invitations sit delays the publication process.

Step 2: Reading the Reviewer Guidelines

After accepting, you'll see the journal's Reviewer Guidelines. Read these carefully—they explain:

• What the journal looks for in a review
• Specific evaluation criteria
• How to provide feedback
• Ethical expectations
• Confidentiality requirements

Click "Continue" to proceed to the actual review.

Step 3: Downloading and Reviewing the Manuscript

Now you can access the manuscript files:

Downloading Files

1. In the "Review Files" section, click the filename to download
2. The main manuscript will typically be a Word or PDF file
3. There may be supplementary files (figures, data, appendices)
4. Download all relevant files for your review

Conducting Your Review

As you read, consider:

Overall Assessment:

• Is the research question significant and clearly stated?
• Does the work contribute new knowledge to the field?
• Is the manuscript appropriate for this journal's scope?

Methodology:

• Is the research design appropriate for the question?
• Are the methods described clearly enough to replicate?
• Are there any methodological flaws or limitations?

Results and Analysis:

• Are the results presented clearly and accurately?
• Is the analysis appropriate and rigorous?
• Do the conclusions follow from the data?

Writing and Presentation:

• Is the manuscript well-organized and clearly written?
• Are figures and tables effective and necessary?
• Are references appropriate and current?

Tip: Many reviewers read the manuscript twice—once for overall understanding and once for detailed evaluation. Taking notes as you read helps organize your feedback.

Step 4: Completing the Review Form

OJS may present a review form with specific questions, or you may provide free-text feedback. Both types require you to complete certain fields:

If Using a Review Form

Review forms typically include:

• Rating scales: Evaluate specific aspects (methodology, originality, clarity, etc.)
• Yes/No questions: Does the paper meet certain criteria?
• Open-ended questions: Provide detailed feedback on specific areas

Answer all required questions thoroughly. Your ratings and comments help editors make informed decisions.

Free-Text Feedback Boxes

OJS typically provides two comment boxes:

Comments for Author and Editor:

These comments will be shared with the authors. Include:

• Summary of the manuscript's strengths
• Specific concerns or weaknesses
• Constructive suggestions for improvement
• Questions that need clarification
• Minor issues (typos, formatting) if you choose to note them

Confidential Comments to the Editor:

These comments are seen only by the editor. Use this for:

• Concerns you don't want shared with authors
• Suspicions about ethics, plagiarism, or data fabrication
• Comments about author identity (in blind review)
• Your honest assessment if different from what you tell authors
• Context the editor should know for decision-making

Writing Effective Comments

Be Specific: Instead of "The methodology is weak," explain exactly what's problematic and why.

Be Constructive: Instead of "This section is confusing," suggest how it could be improved.

Be Professional: Even if the manuscript has serious problems, maintain a respectful, constructive tone.

Be Organized: Structure your comments logically—major issues first, then minor ones. Some reviewers number their comments for easy reference.

Example Structure:

Step 5: Making Your Recommendation

Based on your evaluation, select a recommendation from the dropdown menu:

Recommendation Options

Accept Submission:

The manuscript is ready for publication with no changes or only very minor corrections. Use sparingly—most manuscripts need at least some revision.

Revisions Required:

The manuscript has merit but needs minor improvements. After revisions, it could be accepted without another full review.

Resubmit for Review:

The manuscript has potential but requires major changes. It should be re-evaluated after significant revisions—possibly by the same or different reviewers.

Resubmit Elsewhere:

The manuscript doesn't fit this journal's scope or audience but might be suitable for another publication.

Decline Submission:

The manuscript has fundamental flaws that cannot be remedied, or it doesn't meet the journal's standards for publication.

See Comments:

Your comments explain your position, but none of the standard recommendations fits. Use when you want the editor to interpret your detailed feedback.

Matching Recommendation to Feedback

Your recommendation should align with your written comments. If your feedback identifies major problems, don't recommend "Accept." If you suggest only minor improvements, "Revisions Required" is more appropriate than "Resubmit for Review."

Step 6: Uploading Files (Optional)

Some reviewers annotate the manuscript file directly or create a separate document with detailed comments. If you have files to share:

1. Look for the "Reviewer Files" or "Upload" option
2. Click "Upload File"
3. Select your annotated or comment file
4. Complete the upload

Important for Blind Review: If uploading files, ensure they don't contain your identifying information in the file properties or content.

Step 7: Submitting Your Review

When you've completed all sections:

1. Review your comments and recommendation one final time
2. Click "Submit Review"
3. Confirm when prompted
4. You'll see a confirmation that your review has been submitted

After submission:

• You'll receive a confirmation email
• The editor will be notified
• You can view your submitted review but cannot modify it

After Submitting Your Review

Editor's Decision

Depending on the journal, you may or may not be informed of the final editorial decision. Some journals:

• Send notification of the decision to reviewers
• Share other reviewers' comments with you
• Share the author's response to your review

Re-Review Requests

If the author submits a revised manuscript, the editor may ask you to review again. This is typically easier than the initial review—you're checking whether your concerns were addressed.

Acknowledgment

Some journals acknowledge reviewers annually or offer reviewer certificates. Services like Publons allow you to track and verify your reviewing activity.

Ethical Responsibilities

As a reviewer, you agree to uphold certain ethical standards:

Confidentiality

• Keep the manuscript confidential—don't share it with others
• Don't use ideas or data from the manuscript for your own work
• Destroy copies after completing your review

Conflicts of Interest

Decline to review if you:

• Have collaborated with the authors recently
• Have a personal relationship with an author
• Are a direct competitor with conflicting interests
• Have financial interests in the research
• Cannot be objective for any reason

Integrity

• Provide honest, unbiased assessment
• Base your evaluation on scholarly merit, not personal opinions about the authors
• Report suspected plagiarism, fraud, or ethical violations to the editor
• Complete reviews yourself—don't delegate to students or colleagues without editor permission

Tips for Quality Reviews

Troubleshooting Common Issues

Can't Access the Review

Problem: The link in the email doesn't work.

Solution: Try logging into the journal website directly and checking your Dashboard. If the review doesn't appear, contact the journal editor.

Need More Time

Problem: You can't complete the review by the deadline.

Solution: Contact the editor immediately to request an extension. Use the Discussion feature in OJS or reply to the invitation email. Most editors will accommodate reasonable requests.

Technical Problems

Problem: Can't upload files or submit the review.

Solution: Try a different browser, clear your cache, or reduce file sizes. If problems persist, contact the journal's technical support or editor.

Submitted Review with Errors

Problem: You noticed a mistake after submitting.

Solution: Contact the editor through the Review Discussion panel or email. They may be able to let you make corrections or can note your clarification.