Reviewer Guidelines

Pipeline Science and Technology complies with the Committee on Publication Ethics Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which provides a comprehensive guide to the ethics of peer review.

Reviewers must be objective and diligent in their review, and have the necessary expertise in order to assess the manuscript (Hames & Committee on Publication Ethics Council, 2013). Furthermore, access to unpublished research and data demands maintaining and ensuring the confidentiality of the information in the manuscript to safeguard both the review process and the intellectual property rights of the author(s).

Reviewers have a duty to promptly respond to review requests and notify one of the editors if, after accepting a request, circumstances change and the review won’t be completed on time. There is also an obligation to decline a review request if the reviewer feels he or she lacks the necessary expertise in a subject matter or if there is a conflict of interest (or even the appearance of one). If at any time during the review process there is a question or doubt regarding the accuracy of the research record, or there is suspicion of academic misconduct, the reviewer must bring this to the attention of the editors in a timely manner.

Conflict of interest (or competing interests)

If the reviewer considers that there is any conflict of interest that may compromise their review they are required to make this known to the editorial office, and may be excused from performing the review. The reviewer may not be aware of this until they have accepted the invitation to review. "Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in nature. If you are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or have been recent (e.g., within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders, you should not agree to review.  In addition, you should not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review, or agree to review a manuscript that is very similar to one you have in preparation or under consideration at another journal." (from the COPE Guidelines)


Reviewers are required to respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and "refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal. The names of any individuals who have helped with the review should be included so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts."  (from the COPE Guidelines)


Reviewers are asked to return their reviews by the requested date, and to inform the editorial office staff (responsible editor) if there is likely to be a delay.

What reviewers are asked to do

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the articles for the following:

  • Is the author familiar with the existing state of research?
  • Is the topic of the article relevant to the aims and scope of the PST?
  • Is a new and original contribution presented in article?
  • Is the title of the article appropriate?
  • Are the abstract and keywords adequate?
  • Is the presentation of material logical and technically correct?
  • Are the interpretations and conclusions sound and justified by the results?
  • Is the writing style (in English) clear and understandable?
  • Is the paper of the right extent?
  • Are the references adequate?

Reviewers also can provide confidential comments to the editors and to the authors.

Reviewers are asked to always be polite and constructive in their report, and never to be abusive or to make unjustified criticisms of the work.